Hey gay homosexuals! Be happy! The Supreme Court is going to hear your gay cases about all the sick things you gays do, like get married and serve in the military. Wait, what? You’re NOT uniformly happy that the Supreme Court will hear your gay cases because there’s some complex different issues blah blah blah? WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM US?
You have a wide variety of non-Wonkette sources that will actually, you know, explain the cases to you. For some detailed and thoughtful analysis from actual lawyers, go read SCOTUSblog. If you want a non-legalistic summary of what’s going on, try HuffPo. If you want someone to explain to you why one of these cases is cool for the homosessicans and one is bad, you can’t really do better than Mother Jones:
The DOMA case asks the justices to strike down the federal law that dictates which marriages are valid. Even better for supporters of same-sex marriage: Of the several DOMA cases the court could have taken, it decided on Windsor v. United States [4], in which plaintiff Edith Windsor was unable to claim an estate-tax deduction after her female partner died. Between striking down part of a heavy-handed federal statute and helping someone get a tax cut, it’s the kind of same-sex marriage case even a conservative justice could love. Most importantly, from the point of view of getting the requisite five votes, striking down that part of DOMA would not prevent states from banning same-sex marriage.
The Prop. 8 case argues something much broader, however: It claims there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, and that any attempt to ban same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was written so narrowly [5] that if the Supreme Court had decided not to take the case, then the Ninth Circuit’s decision would have affirmed the rights of same-sex couples in California alone. But if SCOTUS were to affirm the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the ruling could well apply to any such law nationwide.
Let’s Wonkettize this for you. DOMA case likely to succeed because states’ rights good and taxes bad. Proposition 8 case is messy because possibly epileptic altar boy John Roberts, swarthy anger bear Antonin Scalia, quietly bloodthirsty Clarence Thomas, and perpetually in a snit Samuel Alito are pretty sure to use the case to find a way to ban teh gays from the marrying forever. So, as always, the whole thing will come down to endless maw of ass-kissing need Anthony Kennedy. Same as it ever was. So, homosexuals and friends, start sending fruit baskets or Porsche Boxsters or epic love poems or erotic chocolates or SOMETHING to Justice Kennedy ASAP.





{ 98 comments }
"WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM US?"
I dunno, maybe the same rights afforded to everyone else without having to beg for them?
You took the words right outta my mouth, Miss Barbara. We want the same rights as every other US citizen.
Good morning, Bad Kitty. You get a head butt of approval from me.
*purrs*
You are every other U.S. citizen. There should be no distinction or judgement made against your rights just because some closeted fundies are askeered of their feelings down there. Pisses me right off, it does.
Sure, YOU go ahead and take the high road, and ask him to vote his conscience people. My question is: Does he like Harry and David pears when he's sitting on a Hawaiian beach with his Ikea monkey, or is that too middle class?
Will it cost extra to just be left alone to live a decent life with the man I love, where do I pay and do they take checks?
A "decent life"?
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?!
There is arugula involved.
I think I'm the luckiest man on the planet and you'd agree if you met my guy.
:0) That makes me smile like dammit.
But it's not like gay people are corporations or anything.
True. We pay more taxes and have fewer rights.
Oh, I want to make hot, sweet, sweaty love to this comment. And then turn it over and do it frontways.
BAY-bee! *BadKitty swoons*
'zactly.
I'm so tired of having to explain why I should be treated like every other tax payer. Goddammit.
I'm booking a trailer now for delivering a Boxter full of chocolates to Kennedy.
Yeah, you gotta keep an eye on those pesky, sneaky gays. They might break into your house and redecorate it.
"Hello 911? There's toile and ambient flowers everywhere!"
Use of toile should be a hanging offense.
I'm offended that I even know what toile is. I think I must have od'd on BBC's "Changing Rooms" reruns.
Oh, Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen and your sleeves! And you're shocking heterosexuality!
I would pay to have some redecorating work done. (Being a femi-nazi and all, I have no built in talent for it.) ;-)
First Lindsay throwing a hissy fit and now this. What's up with all the Gay whining today?
You could say people seem to have a hard-on for gay whining.
"Erotic chocolate" was Clarence Thomas's nickname in high school.
Ew.
Sorry I'm not sorry.
I thought it was Coke Can.
Repubelican.
Just don't take the curly black dental floss off the Coke can if he offers it.
Talk about "ew"
Short Dong Silver.
Lemme break this down for you.
Right to own a gun and use it against a "threatening" brown person > Right to be racist and not get fired from your job as a bloviating talk radio schmuck> States rights> Rights of white straight Christianists> Rights of fetuses > everyone else.
If you want to feel bad about America, go to the IMDB page for Lincoln (the movie, without the Vampire Hunting). Scroll down to the featured user review. (Spoiler: he doesn't like it because not enough states' rights. Also too, all the white people look ugly but the black people are pretty. No, really.)
Yowsah. It's gone from the top featured review for me, but it's pretty high up when you open them all up.
We may hear from Clarence Thomas from the bench for the first time in years.
His contribution to oral argument, however, will be:
"Ewwww!"
I don't know: lesbians are involved.
Nobody doesn't like lesbians.
Also, oral.
Maybe someone should sneak a pubic hair onto his Coke can, to calm him down a bit.
"Ewwww!" as he flicks a pubic hair from his can of Coke. Fixed!
This will be the first Supreme Court case argued on the pages of Craigslist.
Well, to quote Rodney King (RIP): Ow, ow, ow, ow,ow…..
I'm cheering for the fags on this one. You go girls. Good luck.
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/j/Y/3/liber…
Kennedy wants a 911. The Boxster is too cramped, even though it has better handling on account of its mid-engine layout—kinda gay, in other words.
"Same as it ever was."
"You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful wife.
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground…."
Shorter Wingnut: You ghey can't use those wurds (states rights, low taxes, smaller gubbiment)!! They's OUR WORDS.
Low tax. That is worship word — Yang worship word. You will not say it!
E PLEBNISTA LIBEL!
Wait. Whiny Gays? Didn't we just have a Lindsey post?
Well I have my fingers crossed, but based on the vein constantly bulging out of Scalia’s forehead shouldn’t just wait a few months?
Activate hind brain implants in Reptilian footsoldiers…..
Transmitting…..
“It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
End Transmission.
Oh pul-eeze. That's Adam and Stephen.
Which one is the goat-fucker again?
AOT,K (it had to be said).
FYI people, HELLO, that panty shot has made The Wonkette NSFW.
fap fap fap fap
It would be a public service to at least tell us who's in them.
I could believe in Janet Reno coming out, but not in her coming out of Scalia.
Sex, sex, sex. Why can't all you liberals just give up sex for most of your life, and just drool and lech at strip clubs like we Conservatives do?
Scaly-a is a Supreme Cunt.
"Each man must decide for himself where beauty lies and surely the more affection in this world, the better."
~ Dr. Don Esteban Maturin y Domanova, 1812
"Please sir, may we please have some rights? Please?"
So basically gay marriage might maybe possibly be approached through a sneaky constitutional reach-around, but straight up propositioning is ridiculous and can't be openly accepted.
Sounds like every Republican trip to Brazil.
What are the chances the Supremes will stand on the side of love, and not bigotry? (Sigh)
Per the haters: ♫You can't hurry love♫
What are the chances the Supremes will stand on the side of love, and not bigotry?
4 to 5.
I'm disappointed by the sincerity in this comment section.
Earnest Bullshit!!
Who is Lindsey Graham going to marry when he gets primaried out of his Senate seat? Inquiring minds want to know.
Mebbe he can borrow Charlie Crist's 'wife'….
Alas, Barney Frank is already taken.
The Prop. 8 case argues something much broader, however: It claims there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, and that any attempt to ban same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment.
Uh-oh. Scalia's one of those so-called (because it isn't a real thing) strict constructionalists who believe for some reason that the Constitution, which sets limits on how government can impose on its citizens, doesn't allow gay marriage because it's not explicitly affirmed. Nevermind that heterosexual marriage isn't either, but for some reason these Federalist Society assholes think the Constitution restricts your right to sleep with whoever you want but doesn't restrict the government's ability to torture someone at a prison camp in Cuba. Ugh.
This is a guy who thinks innocence is no reason to put off a perfectly good execution. The most you can hope for from Scalia is a "leave it up to the states" opinion, and even then he'd be holding his nose while he wrote it.
9th Amendment libel!
Really I'm just waiting for the day when the IRS gets fed up with the unnecessary complication this has on taxes and uses its heretofore unknown powers of just making stuff legal. And whose going to argue with them? Its the IRS, they laugh at your god.
It will be interesting to see what type of "originalism" Scalia pulls out of his rear to claim that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee equal protection to groups he personally dislikes.
It's what the Founders intended when they passed the 14th Amendment.
Scalia, sounds like a disease, yup, it is…
Scalia, like shingles, is caused by a herpes virus.
I'm confused about why goat fucking is "effective"???
Efficient, yes. Cheap date, yes. But effective?
If there's a happy ending then yes, it is effective.
I'm not expecting a game-changer on this one. I am curious how five justices will pitch their prejudices as a justifiable legal argument. I hope I'm wrong…
It's easy: you make a case that the Founders were just as prejudiced as you are.
Call it "originalism", and you get a pass on being such a dick.
FYI, Scalia et al. I'm gonna suck a dick whether you let me be married or not. Not letting me be married in the eyes of the State is not going to make me crave the lady parts. Just sayin'
FYI, or just FY?
If being f-ed over by the supreme court doesn't make you equal I don't know what does.
To sum up: Buttsechs for errybody.
Funny how you can know exactly how Scalia will rule, without having to know shit about constitutional law.
Actually, it's not funny at all.
For some of us, it's heartbreaking.
Scalia: "I deny your constitutional rights because it offends my moral belief."
Scalia's self-justifying reasoning begs the question: why is homosexuality immoral?
Because George Washington would have gone "eeew."
If it's not written in the constitution that homosexuality is immoral, it's unconstitutional to identify homosexuality as immoral.
Gotcha, Antonino, baby.
Shoving that Originalist approach down Tony's throat. Well done.
You let these clowns appoint one president and they totally think they can do whatever they wish now.
In preparation for this case, expect Thomas to do extensive background research on lesbians.
Videos, mostly.
Me, too.
Comments on this entry are closed.