LET FREEDOM RING ... WAIT FOR WHO?  7:26 pm May 31, 2012

GOP-Appointed Judges Strike Another Blow For States’ Rights! (And Gayness)

by Josh Fruhlinger

Heroes fighting Big GovernmentSuck it, Taxachusetts libs! Some federal appellate judges appointed by America’s greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, just struck down a law signed by a Democrat president that puts the federal government’s nose where it doesn’t belong: in the business of the sovereign states that make up our nation. No matter how much you liberals want it to, Big Government can’t tell the states how they can run their business! Let’s see, what bit of liberty has been restored to the free states, from which all national power derives in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, this time? Why, it’s the power to define marriage as the union between a dude … and … another dude? ABORT ABORT ABORT

Remember 1996, when liberal hero Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which meant that even if your state decided to recognize same-sex marriage, the feds wouldn’t? Well, that’s not right, said the three judges of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over not one but two gay-marryin’ states (Massachusetts and New Hampshire). The states have defined marriage for themselves since times of yore, and so if you get gay-married in New Hampshire, you should also get gay-Social Security survivor benefits, can file your taxes gay-jointly, and can’t get gay-deported if you’re gay-married to a gay-American.

Of course, the possibility that you could be recognized as married in one state and not in another opens a horrifying can of equal-protection problems, and puts the federal government in a position of revoking your federal rights when you move from Massachusetts to Mississippi for some reason (suggestion: don’t move from Massachusetts to Mississippi). Trying to sort all that out will be gnarly, but should give lots of fun opportunities to dig through the all the legal precedents from previous eras when people had different statuses depending on what state they lived in (i.e., anti-miscegenation laws, slavery).

Anyway, it’s not a problem yet, so don’t get too excited about exercising all those federal marriage rights, Masshole gays: the case is being stayed pending the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court, where it’s on a collision course with Perry v. Brown, the challenge against Proposition 8. That case is going after gay marriage bans on 14th Amendment grounds and is aiming to be the sweeping Loving v. Virginia of gay marriage, not some states’ rights bullshit. The two should crash together into a tasty melange of humans rights legal debates that we’re sure the Roberts Court will handle in a forward-looking fashion. [coughs nervously] [LAT]

 
Related video

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

{ 192 comments }

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 7:29 pm

puts the federal government in a position of revoking your federal rights when you move from Massachusetts to Mississippi for some reason

People moving from Massachusetts to Mississippi should have their US citizenship revoked. And their heads examined.

Vecchiojohn May 31, 2012 at 9:17 pm

Isn't living in Mississippi punishment enough?

sewollef June 1, 2012 at 8:31 am

Wait, are we sure it's not a case of being sent into exile for some misdeed or other?

As in, Mississippi is the US equivalent of Siberia…. but with alligators.

HobbesEvilTwin June 1, 2012 at 9:40 am

absolutely! And not just any old misdeed; we commie-loving, abortion-having, pinkos will send you to your exile if you don't eat your arugula.

el_donaldo May 31, 2012 at 7:30 pm

Sometimes, when people say "freedom" it rhymes with "awesome" instead of "just dumb."

Callyson May 31, 2012 at 7:30 pm

I hope Chief Justice Roberts chokes on his gavel.

In a totally non – violent, non – death wishing way of course…

Butch_Wagstaff May 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm

That's not a gavel.

MosesInvests May 31, 2012 at 10:41 pm

I dunno, maybe someone should throw acid in his face. Joking! I'm sorry if anyone was offended by that statement!

sewollef June 1, 2012 at 8:36 am

Maybe, maybe, we could invoke a forced Operation Serenade on Roberts. He's gotta be due by now, surely. Stupid old bar-steward.

*Not intended as a factual statement.

Nostrildamus May 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Another blow for gayness!
And another blow for gayness!
And, what the hell, how about another blow for gayness?

Butch_Wagstaff May 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm

I approve the blowing of gayness.

anniegetyerfun May 31, 2012 at 10:09 pm

Teh geyz will take all the blows they can get, I hear.

neiltheblaze May 31, 2012 at 10:47 pm

In fact, some give all the blows they can get.

sewollef June 1, 2012 at 8:33 am

Grammar question: Give all the blows they can get. Huh?

neiltheblaze June 1, 2012 at 8:35 am

Statement in context. If you were a gay man, you'd understand.

Tommy1733 June 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Bring on the gay blows.

edgydrifter May 31, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Somewhere in the Constitution there must be a Screw the Homos clause, because strict constructionists Scalia, Alito and Thomas will definitely base their decision on it.

poorgradstudent May 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm

I think it's in the article that declares that 18th century intellectual thought precisely mirrored 21st century conservativism.

Sharkey May 31, 2012 at 9:20 pm

I'm so glad I'm not going to be around for the 23rd century, you have no idea.

Negropolis May 31, 2012 at 10:28 pm

What about the 22nd?

Crank_Tango May 31, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Too soon!

Lascauxcaveman May 31, 2012 at 11:23 pm

What!? And miss the madcap exploits of Capt. James T. Kirk?

You are one sick puppy.

George Skullfry May 31, 2012 at 10:18 pm

It's in the Secret Codicil to the Constitution.

Dashboard Buddha May 31, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Double secret homophobia?

spinozasgod May 31, 2012 at 11:23 pm

would the homos object to being screwed?

Callyson May 31, 2012 at 7:36 pm

Also, from HuffyPo's report on this, the wingnuts are really losing it:

Opponents of gay marriage blasted the decision.
"This ruling that a state can mandate to the federal government the definition of marriage for the sake of receiving federal benefits, we find really bizarre, rather arrogant, if I may say so," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Yeah, because there's nothing bizarre or rather arrogant about denying marriage equality for the sake of imposing prejudiced views…

Asshole.

Generation[redacted] May 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm

States imposing their mandates on the federal government? Fed's Rights! Fed's Rights!

I'll bet it's an unfunded mandate, too.

Heh heh… mandate…

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 7:38 pm

The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

Overturning 200 years of precedent? Now that's what I call conservative.

glamourdammerung June 1, 2012 at 6:37 am

Overturning 200 years of precedent? Now that's what I call conservative.

I thought that they were not going to be able to outdo Bush v. Gore prior to the Roberts Court in that regard.

/sighs

ThundercatHo May 31, 2012 at 7:38 pm

I can't wait to see Lindsey Graham on, "Say Yes to the Dress".

So Tired May 31, 2012 at 9:26 pm

More likely "Bridezillas".

C_R_Eature May 31, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Bridezillas.

horsedreamer_1 June 1, 2012 at 7:48 am

If WALNUTS thought his second wife a cunt, whatever will he say of no. 3?

C_R_Eature June 1, 2012 at 8:09 am

What is "Lindsay is a cocksucking asshole" Alex?

Lascauxcaveman May 31, 2012 at 11:26 pm

I'm not going to look it up, by I'm assuming both those shows you mentioned are actually funny gag shows that you made up in you clever minds and don't actually exist; aren't they?

ThundercatHo June 1, 2012 at 8:40 am

Sadly, these are real "shows" with real people behaving like nitwits.

trampndirtdown June 1, 2012 at 12:31 am

Graham Norton show?

BaldarTFlagass May 31, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Well, it's obvious that these Republican-appointed judges have turned gay, which just proves the assertion by the social conservatives that being gay is a choice, not something you're born with.

spinozasgod May 31, 2012 at 11:25 pm

supposedly your kids can catch it…..through the exchange of bodily fluids I would guess….

VicariousMe May 31, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Now, THIS is a big tucking deal.

bagofmice June 1, 2012 at 3:48 am

Lucky groom.

sullivanst May 31, 2012 at 7:41 pm

9th Circuit's opinion in Perry vs. Brown was very carefully crafted to make damned sure it would not be the Loving for gays. Boies and Olson actually laid out that option in their briefs, too, perhaps aware that Justice Kennedy is a much easier win if the ruling affects only California, than if it would apply to all 50 states.

DOMA Title 2 doesn't just open the door to trawling through anti-miscegenation precedents, it also is very likely to produce lines of argument that will, with a fair degree of justification, be decried as making highly offensive comparison between gay marriage and incest and hebephilia. Actually, in light of Loving, none of the anti-miscegenation precedent is current, so the stuff that offends will be the bulk of the discussion, because last go-around those were the only examples the government's lawyers could find of marriages legal in some states but not others that were still relevant.

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 9:52 pm

What's most pathetic is the notion that you have to tailor your arguments for a single "swing" justice, because you know for a fact that four justices are not going to apply Constitutional principles, but are simply going to go "fuck no!" and then tie themselves into knots in an attempt to justify it.

Or, to paraphrase another Wonker: "How is it that I don't know shit about Constitutional law, but I can predict how these justices will vote?" Answer: that's exactly why they were appointed. Fuck You, Dumbya, with a rusty chain saw, etc.

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 2:03 am

That is fucking beautiful, unknown wonketteer.

It's not like science, is it?

"Imma gonna slap down some n-substrate, then some p-substrate, then some n-substrate. Anyone want to take a guess what happens when I connect the n substrates across a battery and apply a little voltage to the p? 0.7 volts should do it. Anyone?"

It's all partisan ideological bullshit, and very well put by whomever said it.

weejee June 1, 2012 at 2:07 am

Amping-up at this hour, but hey a little bias at the gate and…?

John Bardeen weeps.

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 2:18 am

Your punning induces pain to those resisting.

JustPixelz June 1, 2012 at 6:52 am

Science? Repubicans believe in Bible science. No evolution. No global warming. Young earth a the center of the universe. Etc.

Also, if God wrote the Bible, why didn't he mention penicillin? That would have been helpful to know sooner.

sewollef June 1, 2012 at 8:46 am

"if God wrote the Bible, why didn't he mention penicillin?"

Because she's a raging asshole…. much like Michele Bachmann only omnipotent.

Wait….

BerkeleyBear May 31, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Well this case ignored Title 2 completely, and as you note the Prop 8 case is only about how California's insane "ban" supposedly only effects language and no substantive rights (because if it had then it would have had to been approved by a much higher percentage of the electorate), so we'll have to wait for another test case to really get title 2 taken head on for its insane re-write of "full faith and credit."

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 8:40 am

Yes, I only mentioned Title 2 because it's the part that's relevant to losing Federal rights if you move from Mass. to Miss. in a stunning display of masochism. Of course, until Title 3 is struck down, you'd have no Federal rights to lose.

It's at once comforting and disturbing that the gov'ts lawyers had to scrape the barrel so severely in their ham-handed attempts to defend Title 2. Comforting in that there's clearly no case law to support non-recognition of other states' marriages except where everyone agrees there's a line that separates normal relationships from deviancy but reasonable minds differ on the exact location of that line; disturbing because of the sheer number of bigots, at least two* of whom are on the Court, who think same-sex marriage is deviant.

* Roberts and Alito haven't had the opportunities to prove themselves that Scalia and Thomas have, but the latter pair seized their chances with both hands to make proud exhibitions of homophobia.

George Skullfry May 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm

You know, your reference to "Boies and Olsen" just gave me a bipartisan law-boner.

Crank_Tango May 31, 2012 at 7:43 pm

"ABORT ABORT ABORT"

Jeeze, I am aborting as fast as I can, and as often as I can, as it is.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 7:47 pm

That why you need a (dis)assembly line like they have at the Abortionplex.

fuflans May 31, 2012 at 10:20 pm

member when patsy and eddie and saffey were locked in the living room and had nothing to do and got wasted and patsy told saffey she advised eddie to abort abort abort and saffey slaps her?

well, you probably don't but that's still my favorite excessive use of abortion.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 8:43 am

You mean, this time?

Nostrildamus June 1, 2012 at 12:17 am

You, sir, are a true American hero.

bagofmice June 1, 2012 at 3:51 am

Do you need help?

fartknocker May 31, 2012 at 7:43 pm

Will it be the same Supreme Court that brought us Citizen United vs FEC? Because Rachel Maddow told me last night about how fucking peachy that court decision will be influencing this year's election.

Generation[redacted] May 31, 2012 at 7:49 pm

This ruling will motivate the wingnuts to get out the vote, and Citizens United will give them a billion dollars to do it.

So yeah. Just peachy.

BerkeleyBear May 31, 2012 at 7:44 pm

Congratulations, gays. According to this ruling, laws impacting you disproportionately should be given the same slightly heightened treatment as laws impacting unwashed hippies living together, unmarried couples raising kids and pooling their benefits, and the mentally ill. But not the intermediate scrutiny of gender based laws, and certainly not the strict scrutiny afforded race, religion, national origin or other "inherent characteristics."

So you've come a short way, baby?

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 9:57 pm

On the other hand, the religious wingnuts are quite happy to give them strict scrutiny. So it all evens out.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 8:50 am

Wouldn't it have been nice if Lawrence had specified a standard of review rather than merely hinting it was something stronger than rational basis? [Edit: and isn't it strange in the 1st Circuit's opinion how when they're discussing the standard of review, they mention Romer but do not mention Lawrence? Probably wouldn't matter since they cite standing 1st Circuit precedent which postdates Lawrence and makes a good case they're currently foreclosed from reaching as high as intermediate scrutiny]

Personally I really struggle to understand how it's possible for anyone to look at the history of homophobia and fail to conclude that Carolene footnote four applies. Although I guess even there "more searching legal inquiry" is not exactly prescriptive of a particular level of scrutiny.

BerkeleyBear June 1, 2012 at 11:21 am

Well, Lawrence was at great pains to claim it wasn't about the buttsechs but general privacy interests (leading to the bizarre argument by at least one justice (I wanna say O'Connor, but don't have it in front of me) that a narrower, anti-gay sex only law somehow would have been okay). That makes it easy to ignore for a thread the needle blinkered approach like the one taken here (only looking at title 3, suggesting that somehow it is okay for some states to offer fewre rights than others, etc.)

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 11:49 am

The Texas law at issue in Lawrence was a same-sex only buttsechs law. Kennedy's opinion said you can't outlaw buttsechs in private between consenting individuals, regardless of gender, because of the penumbra etc. etc. plus Due Process; O'Connor's concurrence was that Bowers should've been left intact and banning all buttsechs is OK because screw privacy but singling out teh gheys is unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. Which of course made no sense at all, because Bowers was all about the homos, but O'Connor's a strange old coot and I'm unsurprised at this inconsistency.

The major point of Lawrence was that it suggested that homosexual activity is included in the liberties protected by the Due Process clause:

The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

When you combine that with Loving's embrace of the right to marry the person of your choosing (as long as they consent) regardless of skin color under that same Due Process-protected liberty, you're getting well on the way to building a case for a right to gay marry, which would of course strike down all of DOMA. You could make a case that Kennedy's circumscription of his opinion indicates an awareness of that implication but an unwillingness to admit it. So, it's baby steps for now.

BTW, as a matter of the history of the United States, clearly the theory of the nation has been that it is OK for some states to offer fewer rights than others (slavery, Jim Crow being the most obvious examples), especially pre-incorporation, but even now there's plenty of "non-fundamental" rights that are not protected by the Federal Constitution and therefore at states' discretion to grant or deny.

Chichikovovich May 31, 2012 at 7:45 pm

I read the decision quickly earlier today. It has some pleasant moments, including one point early on where it says (translated from the careful judge-speak) "Bills of this significance are usually pretty meaty. This bill, which intrudes significantly on federal-state issues, consists of just two paragraphs, with hardly any supporting hearings. Was it amateur night on the floor of Congress?"

MissTaken May 31, 2012 at 7:49 pm

But wasn't it Scalia who bitched that the Affordable Care Act is long and he is too busy being a dickless dick to read it? Damned if you do, gay if you don't.

Chichikovovich May 31, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Though in Scalia's defence, the principle he asserted in the questions about ACA that "Bills are Unconstitutional if they are Passed through Political Horse-Trading" promises to significantly reshape American jurisprudence.

trampndirtdown June 1, 2012 at 12:35 am

3/5ths compromise?

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 1:57 am

"Bills are Unconstitutional if they are Passed through Political Horse-Trading"

Oh that is just precious.

I'm trying my damndest to think of a major bill which wasn't passed with horse-trading or all-out war.

Chichikovovich June 1, 2012 at 2:23 am

I should be careful, perhaps I over-torqued the snarkinator. Wouldn't want to mislead. Scalia of course didn't state this principle, which is of course absurd on its face, and for just the reason you cite. I was referring to the series of remarks he made about the putatively horrible "Nebraska Kickback" that originally induced Nelson to support the act. Leaving the audience to wonder "OK, so there was horse trading. This invalidates the act because…?"

But it was worse than that. As more evidence of how much Scalia bases most of his judgements on just rotely repeating huffing, outraged emails that his Federalist society buddies forward around, the result of the wheeling and dealing with Nelson wasn't even in the final version. (Lazy, overrated hack.) So the principle presupposed was the even dopier: "If horsetrading is involved in producing any draft of the bill, not necessarily the final one, that represents a reason for striking it down".

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Ted Mack* LIBEL!!!1!

*linkie for the non-oldz at teh Wonkette

bagofmice June 1, 2012 at 3:56 am

Thank you for the link. It sounds like Japanese television.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 8:04 pm

This bill, which intrudes significantly on federal-state issues, consists of just two paragraphs,

Herb Cain just had an orgasm.

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 10:03 pm

I dont recall that the 14th Amendment contains a whole lot of paragraphs. Those damned Founding Fathers – what a bunch of amateurs.

SorosBot May 31, 2012 at 7:46 pm

Well I'm sure the conservative justices who always drone on about "state's rights" will follow their principled ideology and rule in favor of gay marriage, right?

Generation[redacted] May 31, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Expect the South to be fighting for "fed's rights" in 3… 2… 1…

Ryy May 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm

I really wish I could vote for this comment twice, or thrice, or frice.

Swoooon

MissTaken May 31, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Just like the US Senators said they would do whatever military Generals wanted, until those military Generals wanted something different than the US Senators.

SorosBot May 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm

Yeah, but see the military wanted to admit the proven reality of climate change, which is heresy!

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Nobody is going to make teabagger politicians knuckle under to that damned liberal reality. It's against their principles.

Boojum June 1, 2012 at 6:59 am

You spelled it wrong. "Principles" is spelled c-o-n-t-r-i-b-u-t-i-o-n-s.

GuanoFaucet May 31, 2012 at 7:52 pm

George W. Bush's White House portrait weeps.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 7:56 pm

It weeps santorum.

Mittens Howell, III May 31, 2012 at 8:18 pm

It weeps Blingee Jism.

C_R_Eature May 31, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Gin and Flop Sweat.

Negropolis May 31, 2012 at 10:42 pm

Yes, secret, bitter, gin-soaked tears.

Lionel[redacted]Esq June 1, 2012 at 12:28 am

I think that is called anal leakage.

bflrtsplk June 1, 2012 at 7:54 am

W`s portrait weeps when it`s out of white lines and Jack Daniels.

Wile E. Quixote May 31, 2012 at 7:56 pm

(suggestion: don’t move from Massachusetts to Mississippi)

That should read "don't move from Anywhere to Mississippi"

Ryy May 31, 2012 at 7:58 pm

You have obviously never been to Arkansas. :-D

Negropolis May 31, 2012 at 10:44 pm

Razorback libel!

Honestly, though, Arkansas is one of those states where they proclaim in tough situations "Thank god for Mississippi."

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm

Moving from Arizona to Mississippi might still be a move up in the world.

Blueb4sunrise May 31, 2012 at 8:17 pm

HAH!!!!!!!!!

The Mean Elevation of the state of Arizona is 4100'
the lowest point is 70 feet above sea level.

The Mean Elevation of the state of Mississippi is 300'
The lowest point in Mississippi is along the shore at the Gulf of Mexico; sea level.

What?

weejee June 1, 2012 at 2:15 am

I think you missed that in Mississippi Son House and Robert Johnson hit the high notes, while in Arizona you got Smith and Wesson hitting the low notez.

bflrtsplk June 1, 2012 at 7:55 am

Unless you happen to be from Oklahoma… er Arizona … er Texas … er …

Ryy May 31, 2012 at 7:57 pm

Look libtards, the Fed has every right to shove stuff down your and your state's throat, as long as it is the stuff I want shoved!

Now for God's sake get that darkie out of the Whitehouse already!

Arggggg!

Socialism…… floride…… Kenya……

Butch_Wagstaff May 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Birth certificate!
Commie Nazis!

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 10:07 pm

Muslins!!!!!

spinozasgod May 31, 2012 at 11:29 pm

and get off my lawn!!!!!

Ryy May 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm

Trayvon! Off! Now!

trampndirtdown June 1, 2012 at 12:37 am

Solyndra!

CapnRadio May 31, 2012 at 8:00 pm

I expect Zombie Breitbart to rise up and launch a Little Government line of web sites immediately.

George Skullfry May 31, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Excellent.

weejee May 31, 2012 at 8:01 pm

horrifying can of equal-protection problems

Toss them immediately into Scalia's and Thomas' Depends™ and hope it becomes a severe legal gonorrhea that has the dastardly due fervently, and inappropriately obvs, scratching their nether regions during all future arguments they hear.

vtxmcrider May 31, 2012 at 11:27 pm

I am repulsed by the mere thought that Scalia and Thomas even possess nether regions.

Wile E. Quixote May 31, 2012 at 8:02 pm

When reached for comment political consultant and Nan Hayworth spokesman Jay Townsend said "Let's hurl some acid at those Republican judges who overturn the mandates imposed by Democratic presidents."

weejee June 1, 2012 at 2:17 am

Will acid hurling be a demonstration sport at the Londinium Olympics?

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 3:11 am

Well, it's London, so hurling will probably feature noticeably.

Vecchiojohn May 31, 2012 at 8:06 pm

The judge who wrote the opinion is the brother of of Weather Underground member Kathy Boudin, so you can expect heads to start exploding on the wingnutnets any second now.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 8:13 pm

That case is going after gay marriage bans on 14th Amendment grounds and is aiming to be the sweeping Loving v. Virginia of gay marriage, not some states’ rights bullshit.

It'll be interesting to see how Clarence "Slappy" Thomas, the proud owner of a melanin-challenged wife-person, gets around that one.

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 10:09 pm

By asking not a single question (other than, "What do I do, Tony?")

glamourdammerung June 1, 2012 at 6:38 am

That is totally unfair.

He sometimes asks "When is everyone going to break for lunch?"

Biel_ze_Bubba June 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm

And, "What's that on your Coke can?"

Wile E. Quixote June 2, 2012 at 1:46 am

It'll be interesting to see how Clarence "Slappy" Thomas, the proud owner of a melanin-challenged wife-person, gets around that one.

Hey, if Clarence "Slappy" Thomas had his way his melanin challenged wife-person would be the proud owner of a strapping buck of a Supreme Court Justice.

Mittens Howell, III May 31, 2012 at 8:15 pm

There'll be more than one Republican crying into their rent-boy tonight.

Chick-Fil-Atheist™ May 31, 2012 at 8:16 pm

Sixteen years? Jesus, this due process is old enough to take to the prom and have sex with.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 11:10 pm

In Mississippi, it'll probably taking its two chillluns to the prom with it.

Goonemeritus May 31, 2012 at 8:38 pm

By the concept of momentum the breathtaking progress in gay rights over the last three years might keep going even when equality is reached. I for one am hoping for an amendment that will allow our gay brothers and sisters to kick homophobes in the naughty bits by way of reparations.

EatsBabyDingos May 31, 2012 at 8:54 pm

'ABORT ABORT ABORT" At the new USA Discount Abortoplex! Tuesday night is Men's Night, with free abortions for all the men!

Butch_Wagstaff May 31, 2012 at 9:05 pm

"I for one am hoping for an amendment that will allow our gay brothers and sisters to kick homophobes in the naughty bits by way of reparations."

I can already picture long lines of gheys forming outside certain "churches" for the naughty bits-kicking.

Biel_ze_Bubba May 31, 2012 at 10:11 pm

Not if we round up all the asshole preachers, and lock them up behind electric fences.

James Michael Curley May 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm

This post was accented by a lovely ad from Lenox with a vase adorned with fabulous gold trimmed butterflies. I think I'll redecorate this week end.

Lionel[redacted]Esq May 31, 2012 at 9:16 pm

States rights are so gay.

ttommyunger May 31, 2012 at 9:42 pm

I've spent a fairly happy 71 years thinking primarily of my own genitals. What's wrong with me?

sewollef June 1, 2012 at 8:56 am

What's wrong with you? Man, you needed more 'doing' and less 'thinking'.

ttommyunger June 1, 2012 at 9:25 am

My Doctor told me to cut down my sex by 50%. I asked him which half, the thinking about it or the talking about it?

ttommyunger June 1, 2012 at 9:27 am

It is believed that men who go bald from the front to back are intellectuals, men who do so from back to front are oversexed, and men who go completely bald as I have just think about fucking a lot…..I've got a million of em, rimshot!

Negropolis May 31, 2012 at 9:55 pm

GOP-Appointed Judges Strike Another Blow

It's not gay if you do it with a gavel.

Why, it’s the power to define marriage as the union between a dude … and … another dude? ABORT ABORT ABORT

That's not very "pro-life" of you, now is it? Federal rulings are people too, my friend.

Guppy May 31, 2012 at 10:03 pm

I'm sure SCOTUS will be all consistent and rule in favor of states' rights, just like in Gonzales v. Raich.

MosesInvests May 31, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Or Bush v. Gore.

DahBoner May 31, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Since Massachusetts is the only state with "alimony for Life", I recommend that nobody get married there–straight or gay….

MadBrahms May 31, 2012 at 10:04 pm

On the other hand, someof the actual sovereign states within U.S. borders have legalized or will legalize the gay, and there's nothing ours feds can do about it. Eat it, Uncle Sam.

Edit: Want to see a reprehensibly racist Freeper thread about the issue? Of course! And then you will want to burn down the internet.

fuflans May 31, 2012 at 10:15 pm

no, no i actually don't and i won't clicky that link.

MadBrahms May 31, 2012 at 10:16 pm

It was both one of the first and one of the worst google results, and damn, I can't blame you. Apparently wanting to literally kill Indians for being gay is really popular!

Wait, now I'm depressed again.

Negropolis May 31, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Oh, they could do something about it given the supremacy of the feds, but they won't for practical reasons.

Jadetiger79 June 1, 2012 at 1:43 am

I can't speak for all, of course, but in my Chickasaw heritage, it wasn't a big deal. My lineage is the agriculturally inclined peoples. My father's lineage was Arapahoe and they were more fierce and had different mores; my friend who is Nez Pierce says homosexuality wasn't tolerated with that particular nation. Given the atty in that article is Cherokee, it seems logical that Cherokee would be very tolerant of gay unions; our tribes and much of our lands share borders and other similarities. But then what do I know? According to those comments, us dumb Injuns just want more money for gay casinos.

FakaktaSouth May 31, 2012 at 10:18 pm

Hm. Okay.

So, basically what we have here is the problem of trying to make laws from bullshit pandering. Half-Pandering in action form is hard! How can one be sure that these things they are doing as political figures to "look good" to horrid people don't also come around to make them look "insane" or just "really stupid" ? Apparently one cannot. So, my suggestion is – give it up, fucktards. It is time to stop using gay people (or black, mexican, or even be-twatted people) to further your terrible careers at terrible jobs no one wants you to do terribly anyway. All this other maneuvering and adjudicating to pretend "treating all people like people" is an actual problem is just asinine.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 1:00 am

Legal or political "progress", in the sense that we radical commie liberals mean it, tends to follow social or cultural progress. Women's suffrage was achieved by the Suffrage Movement. The Civil Rights Act was a result of the Civil Rights Movement. The 14th Amendment was a result of the Civil War. Etc.

When Clinton signed DOMA (which I hope at least wakes him up occasionally at night) sixteen years ago, the national level of support for same-sex marriage was quite a bit less than it is now, and certainly well below 50%. (Hell, I was only 48 — there were a lot of older motherfuckers than me, and most of them were craaanky).

At the time, I was disappoint. But I did give some credence to the idea that accepting DOMA was a way of cutting off possibly even more severe anti-gay legislative bullshit, and also giving Bubba a little more working room with an all-Republican legislature. This rationale would, of course, be easier to defend if he had kept li'l bubba in his pants and not fucked up his whole second term, but hey.

Anyhow, you're right. It will be good when we can just treat people like people. But we come out of history, and historical attitudes change slowly. The good thing about law is that when attitudes surge forward, we can sometimes pin those progressive attitudes down with law, and after a while the law helps the progressive attitude get more broadly internalized. And the "average opinion" moves a little bit.

A final observation: I am an old Boomer, one of the first. There's a lot of shit we didn't handle as well as we should have, but the one that really sticks in my craw is that we could not ratify the fucking ERA (four states short, as I recall). This says something about the complicated political system the Founders left us.

prommie May 31, 2012 at 10:23 pm

I only think about law when I am paid to think about law, and even then, I only do it half the time. Fuck this.

fuflans May 31, 2012 at 10:27 pm

i was in NY last weekend for my bff's wedding to his partner of 18 years. i got to read.

i got no snark. i am just so happy that sometimes not everything sucks.

George Skullfry May 31, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Yay for everything not always sucking.

What did you end up choosing?

Chichikovovich May 31, 2012 at 11:09 pm

Wonderful! So tell us – what did you choose as your reading(s)?

fuflans May 31, 2012 at 11:29 pm

ha! i am flattered you all remembered!

i read – thanks to you – yeats. wind among the reeds. and i read – thanks to MY MOM – a line or two of brendan behan.

it was some irish for the midwestern jewish boys transplanted to ny.

Chichikovovich May 31, 2012 at 11:40 pm

I'm sorry I wasn't there to hear them – which of the poems in Wind among the Reeds did you go for? "Michael Robartes Remembers Forgotten Beauty"?

fuflans June 1, 2012 at 12:13 am

yes. (blushes). i know it was expected and…romantic. but they LOVED it.

also, there was a recently bereaved gentleman there – with his two children. they read some children's book about 'my different family' and yeats and behan and anne morrow lindburgh pretty much flew out the window.

but thank you all. it was so nice to spend a few days getting acquainted or reacquainted with poetic geniuses.

this week i'm on to skriker which is quite another thing altogether.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 12:03 am

Even those of us who are neither irish nor jewish (although midwestern) suspect Yeats was well received.

Negropolis May 31, 2012 at 10:55 pm

Kind of OT, but in other important judicial decisions, the hackin, GOP-dominated Michigan Supreme Court took a small step in actually recognizing Michigan's medical marijuana act, today, by ruling that patients can use a defense of medical use during a trial, even thosee without the state-issued medical marjiuana cards, so long as they have a doctor's statement. Up until this time, patients were being prosecuted in court for possession and such without being able to offer their condition as a defense, which totally went against the meaning of the act.

So, the MI GOP which took complete power of the government in 2010 and essentially tried to void the will of the people can suck it.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 11:19 pm

OT, but the Department of Justice today told the state of Florida to (to borrow a phrase from Negropolis) suck it!

MosesInvests May 31, 2012 at 11:57 pm

*And* a federal judge told Florida that its law against voter registration drives is unconstitutional. Bad day for Gov. Voldemort, good day for Florida voters.

Negropolis June 1, 2012 at 1:23 am

Well, I'm not going to feel comfortable until I see Eric Holder down in Tallahassee with a contingent of the Florida National Guard.

Wile E. Quixote June 2, 2012 at 1:34 am

Not enough. I want Obama to go full Eisenhower, federalize the Florida National Guard and send in the 82nd Airborne. White southern conservatives become much more tractable when you have a boot on their throat and a loaded gun pointed at their tiny little heads.

flamingpdog May 31, 2012 at 11:42 pm

Did I miss the blog post on this, or is our dear editrix not keeping up with the truly important things in the life of her loyal subjects?

SayItWithWookies June 1, 2012 at 2:47 am

I have a strict rule about that — I only celebrate National Masturbation Month on months that have a vowel in them.

Tommy1733 June 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm

She is typing (with one hand) as quickly as she can!

Steverino247 May 31, 2012 at 11:51 pm

Just so we're clear, States Rights means the right of small-minded bigots to fuck with minorities they don't like.

For example, the right to own other human beings.

The right to define which other human beings you can love and how you express that love.

The right to harass human beings you can no longer own or who love other human beings in ways you don't like to think about.

Let's see Obama send the Army to Mississippi so gays can marry. (That would be the exception to leaving X and moving to Mississippi.)

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 12:09 am

Occupy (in the traditional military sense) Missippi!!!!!

Ryy June 1, 2012 at 1:31 am

He'd need to send the Army to California as well.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 2:50 am

Nah, mang. Boies and Olsen (I love writing that) are on top of it in Cali.

SayItWithWookies June 1, 2012 at 1:54 am

The appeals court's decision was stayed pending the Supreme Court's review — because you don't wanna be too hasty about giving people rights.

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 2:09 am

"He described The Constitution as the how (or how to manual) but the Declaration of Independence is the why and thus our rights are God given, not government given.

Santorum pointed out that if you believe rights are government given then all those rights can be taken away by government."

Rights are only god-given when Rick Santorum and his friendly hordes of mouth-breathing dipshits say so.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 2:52 am

What, you think god gives rights to homos?

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 3:00 am

What, there's an auto-out clause? Must be, I suppose.

It's not like promiscuous women or atheists should get a say in anything.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 3:17 am

Well, to be fair, it would be a pretty fucking unorthodox god that would grant rights to atheists. E.g., I don't grant any rights to god.

Now, promiscuous women are another matter.

SayItWithWookies June 1, 2012 at 2:56 am

"Santorum pointed out that if you believe rights are government given then all those rights can be taken away by government."

Wait — this guy wanted to be president? He knows all those teabaggers keep saying "we the people" this and "we the people" that for a reason, right? That the idea behind the social contract is that the people get together and apportion to their government only those powers that enable it to do its duty, because the people are the source of all those rights to begin with? Dear.

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 2:59 am

"those teabaggers keep saying "we the people" this and "we the people" that for a reason, right? That the idea behind the social contract is that the people get together and apportion to their government only those powers that enable it to do its duty, because the people are the source of all those rights to begin with"

Same deal with religion, and they're too fucking stupid to see it.

edit: do I need to explain that? Maybe. I re-read it and confused myself.

The constitution is a document giving rights to all. All.

Oh, except slaves, and women, and non-landowners.

Anyway, it changes with the times. The social contract in these times is more important than ever, and regressive dipfucks can piss in their own faces as far as I'm concerned.

Wile E. Quixote June 2, 2012 at 1:44 am

"Santorum pointed out that if you believe rights are government given then all those rights can be taken away by government."

This also means that if you believe that rights are God-given then all of those rights can be taken away by God. Therefore we should all become atheists or at the very least agnostics.

valthemus June 1, 2012 at 4:26 am

It's nice when things go our way in court. The boxes of gay porn I've been leaving outside of judges' offices have obviously been having the desired effect. You're welcome.

glamourdammerung June 1, 2012 at 6:36 am

A better solution would be to idle military bases and any defense appropriation spending in the states that do not wish to comply with the 14th Amendment until they decide they want to be part of the U.S. again.

Wile E. Quixote June 2, 2012 at 1:36 am

Tell the U.S. Treasury to stop paying their congressmen, senators and their staffs too.

Biel_ze_Bubba June 1, 2012 at 7:51 am

the possibility that you could be recognized as married in one state and not in another opens a horrifying can of equal-protection problems . . .

. . . unless, of course, the other states simply observe the 14th Amendment. Too bad that in some states, simple, logical, fair, and constitutional all take a back seat to hate.

SaintRond June 1, 2012 at 8:22 am

After that photo you guys at Wonkette ran of Justice Roberts having dinner with a "friend," I've come to doubt that this Supreme Court will ever push an anti gay agenda.

elburritodeluxe June 1, 2012 at 9:49 am

Maybe Reagan and Bush were really America's gayest Presidents! Their secret (homosexual) agenda: to put gay-friendly, conservative-seeming judges in the Federal Judiciary. Reagan and Bush were like a cranky old couple, but they found a way to make it work!

mrblifil June 1, 2012 at 10:06 am

Stop shoving your snarky yet perceptive analysis down my throat.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Yes, all true. I think I recall some weird rambling analogy from Breyer during the mandate arguments, in fact. Although, the girls on the bench seemed to be paying attention, they managed to raise most of the points Verilli failed to.

Also, given the central position of separation of powers doctrine in American governance, isn't "it isn't what we'd do if we were legislating" about the least relevant thing a Justice could possibly say?

BerkeleyBear June 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Yeah, but they say it all the goddamn time.

trampndirtdown June 1, 2012 at 12:29 am

And Boom goes the dynamite.

trampndirtdown June 1, 2012 at 12:42 am

I'm glad your wedding and reading went well. I remember that thread and how impressed I was by all the suggestions. Wunket skum rock!

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 2:56 am

If there is a bottle of vermouth in the refrigerator near the cocktail onions, the eventually resultant martini is unacceptably sweet.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 2:57 am

Why are you awake?

Incidentally, are you aware of the upcoming transit of Venus on 5 June? Last one for a century or so. I missed the one in 2004, so I'm surprisingly excited about this. We get so few opportunities to observe the non-geocentricity of the universe directly.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 9:07 am

Speaking of lazy, overrated hacks, the fucking Solicitor General failed to point out to Justice Scalier* that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was not in the Act.

* Yes, that is intended to imply that he's somehow reptilian

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 3:21 am

Why wouldn't a god do that?

That was Dante's big problem with the Greeks and Romans; why should such obviously devout and industrious people be doomed to the pit?

In his half-arsed solution, they're merely in the first circle of the Inferno, their damnation simply being the lack of God. Ovid, Homer and so on reside there so it's probably fun.

SayItWithWookies June 1, 2012 at 3:31 am

Don't throw me into dat briar patch, brer Jeebus.

George Skullfry June 1, 2012 at 4:14 am

To answer your first question: because the part of the definition of a "god" that distinguishes it from a "sentient entity of extreme power" is the expectation of worship. Obviously, a god could decide to accord rights to someone who refused to worship it, or admit its existence — I'm just saying that would be unusual among the gods we have to work with.

As for the folks in the first circle, their problem wasn't lack of God, it was lack of Jesus, as in living and dying too soon to be baptized.

I've been fascinated by Limbo, which was equivalent deal for babbies who died too soon to be baptized. Since Vatican II, Limbo never existed, and I believe in current thinking they go straight to Heaven, because why not?

This raises the question: what about infants who died B.C.? They had no more chance to be baptized than did the unfortunates who died before baptism, but A.D. Do they go to the first circle or to Heaven? And, how old is an "infant"? Homer never had a chance to be baptized, because there was no one to do it to him.

These are some of the reasons why it's good I'm not a Catholic.

bagofmice June 1, 2012 at 3:50 am

Just showing who's in charge.

Fukui-sanRadioBarb June 1, 2012 at 4:27 am

"To answer your first question: because the part of the definition of a "god" that distinguishes it from a "sentient entity of extreme power" is the expectation of worship. Obviously, a god could decide to accord rights to someone who refused to worship it, or admit its existence — I'm just saying that would be unusual among the gods we have to work with. "

God seems to be kind of a dick, even Jebus-God (who is sure as fuck better than old testament 'fuck you' God)

The limbo/Catholic thing for BC babies is an interesting problem. Do you happen to know the status under Islam? I don't actually know.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 8:29 am

I don't have much capacitance for this.

sewollef June 1, 2012 at 8:44 am

This electrickery stuff hurts my head, I'm heading ohm.

Chichikovovich June 1, 2012 at 8:55 am

I was awakened by a lightning strike close to the house and couldn't get back to sleep. So I did a few minutes of Wonkette to clear my palate, and that worked fine. Back to sleep.

I didn't know about the transit of Venus – the university observatory is conveniently on the top of the building that contains my office, so I'll be able to get a good view. Thanks.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 9:10 am

I will offer you no impedance.

Chichikovovich June 1, 2012 at 10:57 am

I had lunch with several friends from the Law School after those sessions, and they were almost in tears over what they regarded as a catastrophic performance by the Solicitor General.—

Biel_ze_Bubba June 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm

At this junction, I think we've drained all the puns out of this topic.

sullivanst June 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm

I'm not ready to close the gate on conducting punnery just yet.

[Edit: nuts - repetition of gate; I lose]

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: