SHARE

Yeah, we're getting throat-crammed

Tuesday was the last chance for bigots to explain to the Supreme Court why it is constitutional to deny equal rights to gay people because you think they have icky sex. The Court had two questions to consider: First, is it okay for states to prohibit gays from doing marriage together because “tradition” and “ewww gross” and “states’ rights” and “some people don’t like it” and “WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!”? Second, is it okay for states that prohibit marriage equality to tell already gay-married gay couples from other states that their marriages do not count, because this here is Kentucky (for example) damnit, and we do not like you liberal state gay types, for America? And freedom?

As you may have been able to suss out, if the Court decides that the answer to Question 1 is, “Why yes, the Constitution does protect everyone, even The Gays,” Question 2 is moot and irrelevant because GAY MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE, HOORAY! And if the Court for some reason decides that the Constitution is for straights only, well, sorry The Gays, but you’re probably good and screwed, no matter which state issued you a marriage license, sorry.

So, after reading all those eleventy thousand pages of oral argument transcripts (YOU’RE WELCOME), do we still think the Supreme Court is gonna throat-cram equality down everyone’s throats? Yes we do! Because while the conservative justices did their job real good of considering all the dumb, baseless arguments against equality, even they seemed not especially persuaded, and also, it is the 21st century, and the Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is not SO icked out by The Gays that it thinks the Constitution says you can treat them like second-class citizens. So let’s dive in and sexplore!

Is it OK to discriminate against gays if you really don’t like them? (No.)

The morning started with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg immediately destroying this absurd states’ rights argument, with a nice and easy softball question to Mary L. Bonauto, the attorney representing The Gays who would like their states to let them get married please:

What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the Federal government’s historic deference to States when it comes to matters of domestic relations?

Bonauto answered that LIKE A BOSS:

States do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons, and Windsor couldn’t have been clearer about that. And here we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides for families.

So there. Done. States do not have an unlimited right to deny equal rights, not under the Constitution or the Bible or anything. The end. Except that, sigh, Chief Justice John Roberts checked the dictionary, so he’s not so sure about that:

The argument on the other side is that they’re seeking to redefine the institution. Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable.

And obviously, the chief justice forgot to check THE BIBLE, where marriage is defined as a man married to dozens or even hundreds of wives, plus common-law married to his harem of back-up sex partners, some of whom he purchased from some dudes whose daughters he raped. But sure, “a man and a woman.” Whatever.

Justice Anthony Kennedy also looked it up and read it wrong:

One — one of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases, and — and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is — is millennia, plus time. […]

This definition has been with us for millennia. And it — it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we — we know better.

Um, it may be difficult to say if your name is Justice Kennedy, but it’s also kind of your job? (Unless Rep. Steve King’s bill to strip the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on marriage issues succeeds, which it will not, so yes, yes, Justice Kennedy, it is your job. You do it all the time.)

Justice Samuel Alito, another of the Court’s conservatives who usually says that nothing but the U.S. Constitution’s actual words matter, chimed in with another reason why maybe it’s okay to discriminate against gay couples:

Well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, we can infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?

If only there were a justice on the Court who was better at Googling history and stuff. Oh hey, there is. Please explain this “traditional definition” to your colleagues, Justice Ginsburg, by way of a “question” to Ms. Bonauto: ginsburg

But you wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him. There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

Justice Antonin Scalia also comes out of the closet as a judge who is suddenly interested in how other countries do legal stuff.

For millennia, not — not a single other society until the Netherlands in 2001, and you’re telling me they were all — I don’t know what.

Yeah, that’s the justice whose brain is supposedly so brilliant, even if you don’t agree with him, you really can’t argue with him. Easy to see why, isn’t it?

But Plato was gay, right?

Justice Scalia reminds us that “ancient Greece” was cool with homosexuality, and even they didn’t have same-sex marriage, right? (He’s asking because he doesn’t know, but hey, it seems a reasonable and TOTALLY RELEVANT point.) So, you see, if the Greeks like Plato were cool with dudes doing buttsex, but they did not have dudes celebrating with penis cakes and registering at Macys, well, there ya go! That proves … a thing!

The conservative justices are also quite concerned that we haven’t had enough time — not even a “millennia” — to see whether this newfangled definition of marriage that many states have already adopted just might destroy the very fabric of society. (Spoiler: It won’t.) Justice Kennedy, for example, would like us to just sit tight for a while and wait and see:

Well, part of wait and see, I suppose, is to ascertain whether the social science, the new studies are accurate. But that — it seems to me, then, that we should not consult at all the social science on this, because it’s too new. You think — you say we don’t need to wait for changes. So it seems to me that if we’re not going to wait, then it’s only fair for us to say, well, we’re not going to consult social science.

Yes, we know you are also SHOCKED! that Justice Kennedy thinks we should ignore science. You know, like the Court did in 2014, when it ruled that it’s okay for employers like Hobby Lobby to ignore science and refuse to comply with the law because they “believe” things that are scientifically not true. BUT ANYWAY, WE DIGRESS.

Chief Justice Roberts does some Olympic-level gymnastics to offer the idea that if the Court decides this issue once and for all, it will not give Americans enough time to debate amongst themselves whether their fellow gays and lesbians deserve equal rights, and wouldn’t that be a terrible thing?

I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and — and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is — is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by — by the courts.

Justice Scalia, from the Vatican wing of the Supreme Court, then expresses his concern that some of his fellow Jesus bigots think gays are icky, so the Court probably shouldn’t hurt their feelings:

I’m concerned about the wisdom of this Court imposing through the Constitution a — a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons. They are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of.

But huh. If they’re never going to change their minds, what’s the point in waiting and seeing if they change their minds? Maybe the Court should just go ahead and let them know the Constitution does protect gay citizens too, tough if you don’t like it. Who knows? It’s all so confusing! Who are the nation’s most powerful judges to judge? (If that sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same argument the Sixth Circuit used when it re-imposed the ban on gay marriage in several states, by claiming that they were mere caveman judges and needed the Supreme Court to make that kind of call for them.)

And then Ms. Bonauto concludes with this mic-dropping statement:

And I will say before I sit down, if I may reserve my time, Your Honor, that in terms of the question of who decides, it’s not about the Court versus the States. It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and with whom to marry, or the government.

BOOM, SNAP, YA BURNT!

Then it’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli’s turn to argue, on behalf of the federal government, that yeah, denying equality to an entire class of citizens because some people think it’s icky is NOT constitutional, ahem, any more than state-sanctioned segregation by race was constitutional, which is why the Supreme Court had to explain that to some of the hold-out states, and “why would we want to repeat that history”? Furthermore, if the Court decides to “leave this to the political process,” instead of putting an end to these discriminatory laws right now, “thousands and thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their States ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationships.”

And that is really effed up and not what America is supposed to be about, and now here’s the federal government mic-dropping some truth on you:

And what I would suggest is that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community, that it is simply untenable — untenable to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals. Gay and lesbian people are equal. They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now. Thank you.

But can we discriminate against gays anyway? (No.)

John J. Bursch is Michigan’s special assistant attorney general, and he tries real hard to make the case for why his state and the other petitioning states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee should be allowed to keep treating The Gay like they are not actual human American beings:

We’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.

“What Marriage Means to Me,” by Every Individual. Sure, that’ll go down well at the county clerk when your ex you’ve been divorced from for nigh on a decade decides the Bible means you’re still married and you can’t marry up with that COMMON WHORE.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor immediately smacks that down:

I’m sorry. Nobody is taking that away from anybody. Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation or who to marry or not marry. I suspect even with us giving gays rights to marry that there’s some gay people who will choose not to. Just as there’s some heterosexual couples who choose not to marry. So we’re not taking anybody’s liberty away.

sorry but freedom is dead now

Mr. Bursch tries to “but but but,” but Justice Breyer piles on:

What I heard was, one, marriage is fundamental. I mean, certainly that’s true for 10,000 years. And marriage, as the States administer it, is open to vast numbers of people who both have children, adopt children, don’t have children, all over the place. But there is one group of people whom they won’t open marriage to. So they have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. That is people of the same sex who wish to marry. And so we ask, why? And the answer we get is, well, people have always done it. You know, you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.

Mr. Bursch gives a long answer about “biology” and the States’ interest in procreation, even though everyone knows that is a dumb and terrible argument, because if that were the case, which it isn’t, then only couples who procreate would get married, and that’s not how it works. So then he claims that “it has to do with the societal understanding of what marriage means.”

But Justice Ginsburg already historysplained earlier in the day how that’s not a very good argument either because of how society’s understanding of what marriage means actually has changed, a lot, over the years. And Justice Sotomayor also points out that being married doesn’t guarantee good parenting anyway. Just look at all the married hetero dads who abandon their kids, like Deadbeat Joe Walsh. (Ok, she does’t actually mention him by name.)

Then even Justice Scalia becomes skeptical of Mr. Bursch’s argument, pointing out that he started by saying this wasn’t about marriage, but about who gets to make the decisions about marriage.

Is — is it your burden to show that it — it — it will harm marriage between a man and woman if — if you allow two men or two women to marry? Is that your burden? I thought your burden was simply to show that — that the State’s reason for this institution is a reason that has nothing to do, that is inapplicable to same-sex couples.

Why, it’s almost as if counsel for the bigots is desperately clinging to any argument he hopes might work, even though he’s contradicting himself! Which doesn’t stop him from continuing to insist that it’s all about teaching children that marriage is forever, and if you can’t have babies, there’s no point in getting married, and how you can’t just up and change definitions of marriage, all willy-nilly like that, and also he’s VERY CONCERNED about the “72 million children in this country,” who would not even understand what the point of anything is anymore, if the Court recognizes equality for gay couples. And then even heterosexual couples will start abandoning children too, for the first time ever. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

There’s a fair amount of discussion about what level of scrutiny to apply to this case, which is just boring law talk no one cares about unless they’re a lawyer, so we’ll skip all that and get to THE VERY IMPORTANT MOMENT. Brace yourselves, this is important.

And here’s when they lost Chief Justice Roberts

Observe the precise second where even Chief Justice Roberts gets it:

I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?

john-roberts-sad
It is, Chief Justice Roberts. Bravo, you’ve just stumbled upon the essence of how this is discrimination, pure and simple. And yet Mr. Bursch goes back to thinking of the children, again, which the justices have already suggested is a pretty lame argument, but he’s got nothing else. Except for that last super desperate idea that maybe you should just leave it to democracy to figure it out, because then people will “civilly discuss an issue and try to persuade each other through reason, love and logic.”

Justice Kagan then explains that “we don’t live in a pure democracy; we live in a constitutional democracy.” So no, we do not just leave every issue up to the voters to decide whether it’s okay to discriminate against each other. And then Mr. Bursch gets TOTALLY ROUND-THE-BEND DESPERATE.

“You can draw the analogy to the abortion context,” he says, “and I’m reluctant to bring that up” — but then he goes ahead with it anyway and reminds the Court that “the government cannot interfere in that private choice.” Do what now? How is the right to an abortion like a state’s right to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians?

Our position is that the Court cannot, as a constitutional matter, say but yes, you can force the State into these relationships by ­– by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone. That’s not the way that our fundamental rights doctrine works.

Oh. So just as the federal government does not have the right to get all up in your vagina, it also can’t get all up into marriage laws. (Yes, that IS crazy talk.)

And here is Mr. Bursch’s attempt at a mic-drop closing argument:

Your Honors, these are obviously very emotional issues where reasonable people can disagree. This Court has never assumed that people have acted out of animus when they’re voting in the democratic process. […]

But this Court taking this important issue away from the people will have dramatic impacts on the democratic process, and we ask that you affirm.

Would it be OK if just some states discriminate against gay couples please? (No.)

We won’t spend your entire day talking about what should be an irrelevant question before the Court. If the Court recognizes that gay couples in every state have a constitutional right to equality, this question is answered with a big fat, “Well, DUH,” because there will no longer be any states who can keep their precious equality bans.

Douglas Hallward-Driermeier, representing the already gay-married gays, makes a noble effort at trying to persuade the justices that even if they think gays who would like to get married can suck it, gays who are already married shouldn’t have to just because they move to a state with a Suck It Gays law on the books. His clients, he explains, have already created families — with children in them! — who would be harmed by a state stripping them of their marital status, and that is all kinds of wrong. Think of the children! think of the children

Chief Justice Roberts is initially concerned that if the Court does not rule that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, it would be unfair to force gay-hating states to recognize marriages from gay-loving states, because then you’re allowing those gay-loving states to “basically set the policy for the entire nation.” That’s a great point, Chief Justice Roberts! Eventually he and the rest of the justices seem to recognize just how dumb it is to even consider this question, which is all complicated and garbled and technical. Hey, you know what would simplify it and make it real easy? GAY MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE!

Too Long; Didn’t Read

So for those of you who just wanna know if we are getting throat-crammed without all the who said this and that, what’s the answer? WE DON’T KNOW! But we’d like to think even a conservative justice or two is capable of recognizing there is literally no single argument for denying equality to gay couples that doesn’t come down to “But we don’t wanna!” They’ve kinda sorta done it before, despite Plato and ancient Greece and THE CHILDREN! and junk science that we should ignore anyway because it’s so new.

So, cross your fingers, say a prayer, do the hokey pokey, whatever works for you, but yeah, we are still cautiously optimistic that we are this close to GAY MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE, HOORAY!

[Transcript 1 / Transcript 2]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Nounverb911

    “Supreme Court Rams Gay-Marriage Nonsense Down Your Earholes.”
    How do they get past the wax?

    • ArgieBargie

      Wax on, wax off, Daniel-san.

  • Nounverb911

    “Too Long; Didn’t Read.”
    I actually read the whole thing, do you guys get paid by the word like Dickens did?

    • mailman27

      Seems like the conservative justices get paid by the pound. Word salad, you know. That is some seriously garbled shit.

  • elviouslyqueer

    For once, I actually didn’t wish that Scalia would go die in a fire set by sniffing Kevin Calvey’s flaming crotch-hole. Today I’m reserving that particular demise for that incestuous polygamist pigfucker Alito.

  • Jen_Baker_VA

    Roberts never took an anthropology class. There are plenty of examples in human history of marriages occuring, not between people, but between estates, or even multiple estates. Heck, there was one group of people where the women married each other’s body parts, so they could share their work/wealth while the men folk were off offing critters and other people. That’s an extreme example but, to get to the point, whatever dictionary he is reading, it seems to be broken.

    • Boscoe

      It’s almost as if the dictionary’s definition were based on current interpretations (and therefore subject to change over time)! Can’t be! ;)

      • BackDoorMan

        Dictionaries, encyclopedias, history books, the buybull… all those are inviolable, right? Of course they have never been re-written, why, that would be heresy! Or hearsay, I forget which. Let me look it up…

  • Nounverb911

    “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon
    their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

    Will Fox be televising Wingnutistan’s headsplotion after it recovers from it’s own headsplotion?

    • SK

      Depends. Who does Joe love, Sue or Tom?

      (Please, oh please, let it be Tom)

      • Tom is a tramp, and Joe is a no-good cheating louse. But that’s just my opinion.

        • nothingisamiss

          It was only that one weekend!!!!

          • BackDoorMan

            … after 11 years! And I was drunk!

        • BackDoorMan

          So… it’s a guy thing?

      • FlownOver

        I’m in love with Alexei. He loves Alicia. Alicia’s having an affair with Lev. Lev loves Tatiana. Tatiana loves Simkin. Simkin loves me. I love Simkin,but in a different way than Alexei. Alexei loves Tatiana like a sister. Tatiana’s sister loves Trigorian like a brother. Trigorian’s brother is having an affair with my sister, who he likes physically, but not spiritually.

        • riledupone

          And so on, and so on, scooby dooby doo-by.

        • Wheat……

        • BackDoorMan

          … this has all the earmarks of a limited edition rom-com hit which would be perfect for my new net channel Angst-TV… have your people call my people and we’ll work out the details.

        • dansezlajavanaise

          is this chekov? it sounds like chekov.

    • dansezlajavanaise

      wait, was it a boy named sue?

  • Kaili Joy, what’s the Supreme Court’s position on me gay-marrying this fine-ass transcriber that you just crammed down my throat?

  • orygoon

    I never understood the “ew, gross” argument. A walk around the block, or a scan of the various branches of the family tree, or a trip to Walmart will reveal plenty of “ew, gross” couplings of all the historical legality. And in these cases, piling on with the procreation theme does not exactly help.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      I give you the Duggars.

      • Blank Ron

        Ew, gross.

      • riledupone

        I give them back. Thanks anyway.

      • Msgr_Moment

        The Duggistocrats!

    • BackDoorMan

      … can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen “People of Walmart” in all walks of life and thought to myself… “please don’t let them breed”… but that thought, like prayer, is completely ineffective.

  • VandeGraf

    The definition of marriage is millennia old, certainly. It’s probably due for some updating, unless, of course, the SCOTUS decides we should all be bound to the past. (I actually want to watch Thomas pick cotton under the lash, and Scalia begging for a rusk from a sweat shop owner or maybe running numbers for the local boss. A little history is good for the soul.)

    • Boscoe

      I LOL so hard at the “argument” that gay marriage is not possible because dictionary…

    • Steverino247

      Now, go get your fucking shine box.

      • Callyson

        You made me curious if the gif exists. Hurray!

        http://media2.giphy.com/media/y6r8eSqBvyeoU/giphy.gif

        • Vecciojohn

          Oh, this is going to get a LOT of use.

          • Callyson

            I bookmarked this baby immediately. Feel free to do the same, Wonkers!

            (Right-click, click “Open image in new tab,” save it to a file somewhere (rename it first because gifs usually have incomprehensible names.)

          • Lot_49

            You are the Queen of GIFs. Where were you hiding all these before Wonkette allowed grafix in the comments?

          • OzoneTom

            Wonkette allows comments?

          • Lot_49

            You mean you’re not getting the usual $25/comment rate?

          • BackDoorMan

            I have to pay $25/comment? That’s it… I’m out.

          • riledupone

            No.

          • BackDoorMan

            No. Haven’t you been paying attention?

          • Callyson

            Thanks, honey…my collection has been growing exponentially. One gif is worth a thousand words!

          • Lot_49

            You’re welcome. But always remember, sometimes the right word is worth a thousand pictures.

            Or as a really good writer named Mark Twain put it: “The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

          • BackDoorMan

            … then your library must rival that of Alexandria. Make sure you do backups, would hate to see you suffer the fate of that fabled archive.

        • Steverino247

          So happy to help. Hope you’re well.

  • I’ll take Kaili Joy over Nina Totenberg 7 days out of 7.

    Super job Kaili, as per the usual.

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      Kaili is the mother of snarkdragons.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        She is a goddess…the Kahleesi made real!

      • mtn_philosoph

        Khaleesi Joy Gray?

    • Lascauxcaveman

      Beautifully Wonksplained with the usual mastery of humor and expert word-saying and stuff. I like her style.

      (Even though I was callous enough to call her out on that flaunt/flout slipup earlier.)

      • Celtic_Gnome

        And I like the cut of her gib.

        • BackDoorMan

          “And I like the cut of her gib.”

          s/b – And I like the cut of her glib.

          FIFY.

    • Vecciojohn

      What he said.

    • FeloniousMonk

      To be fair, Ms Totenberg does work under the disadvantage that NPR would not be happy if she dicussed Plato being cool with buttsex. Can’t afford to shock any donors into an even slightly earlier grave.

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      “Cept Nina would have droned on about the “level of scrutiny” business. Which is rather important, actually – cases can fail or not, depending on whether “strict scrutiny” is applied.

  • Callyson

    Yo, wingnut justices? Check this out:

    Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is some history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.

    Who reinvented marriage first, dudes?

    • Vecciojohn

      Hey, that link says “Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.” It’s ALREADY illegal! This is the precedent Scalia has been looking for.

  • Callyson

    I don’t know what

    Scalia got that much right, at least…

    http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo91pxPOa61qakh43o1_500.gif

  • cousin itt

    This Court has never assumed that people have acted out of animus when they’re voting in the democratic process.

    *Ahem* Of course, one would have to be able to actually vote.

    Shelby County v. Holder

  • Callyson

    Yes, we know you are also SHOCKED! that Justice Kennedy thinks we should ignore science. You know, like the Court did in 2014, when it ruled that it’s okay for employers like Hobby Lobby to ignore science and refuse to comply with the law because they “believe” things that are scientifically not true.

  • Joshua Norton

    people will discuss it with each other and “civilly discuss an issue and
    try to persuade each other through reason, love and logic.”

    Yeah, discuss it “civilly”. Too bad wingnut and christianoid’s version of a civil discussion is yelling “fag” out a car window.

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      You can’t argue with that logic!

    • Ironically, it’s the ones yelling it from inside a closet who are the easiest to hear.

      • nothingisamiss

        Oh, very good!

    • BackDoorMan

      “reason, love and logic”

      Sorry, I have never witnessed any of those things in evidence during a Christofascist discussion of ANYTHING… why, it’s almost as if those terms were an anathema. In fact, I’m pretty sure they are.

  • Spotts1701

    I’m gonna guess 6-3, with Alito, Thomas and Scalia dissenting.

    • Randy Riddle

      I’m guessing 5-3 with Alito, Thomas and Roberts dissenting and Scalia resigning before the decision is handed down to take a position with the Vatican after he’s outed on Grindr.

      • nothingisamiss

        oh please, oh please, ohplease.

    • Reddishrabbit

      I’d like 6-3, but I really don’t know about Roberts. Of course it would be amazing if they could get 9-0 like Brown.

      • Lot_49

        The 9-0 happened because Earl Warren was a politician (CA gov) before he was Chief Justice. Knew how to work the room, unlike these pampered (white male) ex-law-profs who’ve known little adversity in their lives and therefore lack sympathy for those who have.

        Can’t explain Clarence.

  • Callyson

    and also he’s VERY CONCERNED about the “72 million children in this country,” who would not even understand what the point of anything is anymore, if the Court recognizes equality for gay couples

    “You know, we’d really be better off if you folks would stop thinking of us sometimes.”

    – the children

    • Vecciojohn

      “Mommie!” wailed little Timmy. “What can this madness mean?! What’s the point of anything anymore now that Uncle Bill and his roommate are married? Now, man is truly alone in the universe’s vast, empty void. We strain to find meaning, but there is no meaning. There can be no meaning, and for this reason man is reduced to a state of pure existential dread at the realization of his own mortality.”

      • willi0000000

        little Timmy needs a clout upside the earhole.

        • Vecciojohn

          Heh heh heh.

        • cleos_mom

          Lassie will explain it all to him.

      • BackDoorMan

        … yo! Timmy? You keep talking like that and people gonna think you been reading some of those philly-sophical fairy books, and you know your Momma ain’t gonna like that! You best just say… “God’s agin it! That’s all there is to it!” No thinking allowed… or aloud.

    • YourMom

      Even my daughter, when she was 9, got the point that it was discrimination to deny marriage rights/rites to same sex couples. Now, 18, she and her friends are baffled that we are still arguing about this.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Your daughter was brought up right. Well done!

      • BackDoorMan

        Your daughter is certainly smarter that the US Congress/Senate on this matter… if she doesn’t have political aspirations at this point… she should.

    • Anarchy Pony

      “72 million children in this country,” who would not even understand what the point of anything is anymore,”
      Exactly, if gays can get married, why heal the sick? Why build new homes? Why grow food? Why attempt unraveling the mysteries of existence? Why build a better tomorrow? If gays get married all that stuff just stops being important. Cuz two people with the same hookups got some sort of societally recognized partnership.

      • Biff52

        When I was a kid, there was a woman down the block named Sarge. She and her friend didn’t cause any shit, nor did they take any shit, and how they lived their lives didn’t concern me in the least. In fact I never gave it a second thought until maybe last year, when my sister brought them up while we were discussing the “good old days”. And I laughed, thinking about how they were taking all this stuff.

      • cleos_mom

        I’m sure times have changed since I was a kid (Eisenhower/Kennedy years) but I don’t remember mulling over the question of “what the point of anything is anymore” when I was in grade school. That was the kind of dumb, boring crap that adults obsessed over.

  • SuspectedDemocrat

    I’m lost. Are Alito and Scalia married now?

    • SK

      Not until gay marriage is ruled legal by the Supreme Court. Maybe they should recuse themselves. Hello, conflict of interest, anyone?

      • Vecciojohn

        Brilliant! Be sure to put that in your amicus brief.

        • Beaumarchais?

          If there isn’t room, take out the salami.

          • Vecciojohn

            What th’ heeeeeey . . . .

      • Baby_Raptor

        When have they ever cared about conflicts of interest? That’s a liberal problem.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Oh, this is going to be trouble. Thomas is not going to be happy, at all.

        • PubOption

          He’ll just give them the silent treatment.

    • Bren

      No, they just send dick pics to each other on Grindr.

    • cleos_mom

      Clarence would never allow a third party in the lovenest.

  • Lascauxcaveman

    Oh Chief Justice Roberts **coughclosetcase** definitely gets it. This thing is looking at going 7-2 in favor of teh ghey, or maybe even 8-1 if Fat Tony wants to try and look smart for once. (Don’t hold your breath on that one).

  • culture_drone

    It’s weird to think that they may be a day where that title graphic is no longer relevant (barring some fringe DARPA research bearing some very sparkly fruit)

  • Lot_49

    When gay marriage is mandatory, will the state decide who we have to gay marry?

    Hope I don’t get Scalia…talk about icky!

    • Vecciojohn

      As I understand it, forced gay marriages will first be crammed down the throats of FEMA camp internees and then registered Republicans, so by the time they get around to us Scalia should be dead.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        This would be a concern if Obama wasn’t on his thin black ass about getting the FEMA camps up and running. Slacker. Bucket lister.

        • Vecciojohn

          Short-timer. Just spends his days counting that sweet govmint pension and dreaming about returning to his dacha in Kenya.

      • Lot_49

        Nino’s too mean to ever die.

    • Me not sure

      I’m straight, but I’ll take him, providing of course that he has good life insurance. I smell me
      some Brazilian Honeymoon/Funeral.

      • ThatDale

        Yeah, speaking as a straight white male, I have to admit I find Scalia… No. I can’t do it. Carry on.

        • Me not sure

          I’m only in it for the settlement.

        • Me not sure

          You’re right. God help me, what was I thinking?

  • I’m afraid that despite some great arguments made by the good guys, some dumbass arguments made by the dumbasses, and some awesome mic dropping moments, this court is going to just flip a coin that’s been minted to always land dumbass up.

    • sohadicouldsplit

      “Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation…”

      It’s bullshit statements like this from the “good guys” that has my pessimism meter redlining to full busted already.

      • willi0000000

        the words “to express” really should have been in there! . . . right after “chooses”

      • Me not sure

        I think the “If they can” leaves A LOT of wiggle room. If it’s innate then you can’t.

        • Villago Delenda Est

          The unstated implication is “why would they choose to be pariahs to so many, to be persecuted, to be targets of abuse and violence?”

          It’s not a choice.

          • sohadicouldsplit

            Thanks you two. I admit I’m not able to rationalize as um, unemotionally as I’d like to– A: gay. B: Michigander. C: I’ve used that argument pretty much verbatim for years and it doesn’t seem to mean what I think it should mean to the “pariahs” I address it to. D: Instead of being a Debbie Downer I think I should just swallow a bunch of ’em and try to chill ’till June!

          • anniegetyerfun

            I’m with you. I mean, I’m bi and in Washington, but I feel pessimistic about this. Drinking is helping, though.

    • BackDoorMan

      … while I agree with you that might be inevitable, part of me says “please, let sanity prevail.” Yeah, I’ve been disappointed before, I likely will be again.

  • RoyalUglyDude

    I get the feeling Scalia really likes movies about gladiators.

    • Reddishrabbit

      And Spartans. Those oiled Spartans in the Greek sands.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        300: the gayest movie EVAH!

        • Anarchy Pony

          Even with leonidas bangin his wife and the oracle writhing around?

          • Villago Delenda Est

            Oh, that was stuck in there to provide cover, obviously, for all the rest of the homoerotic run time.

          • Anarchy Pony

            It was a little on the fascist side too.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            And not in the snarky way that Starship Troopers was, either.

          • Lot_49

            I liked the way the Spartans said they were fighting for FREEDOM, even though in Spartan society there were 25 helots for every citizen.

          • cleos_mom

            Very appropriate considering that the Spartan city-state was either the first or one of the first fascist states.

      • BackDoorMan

        … err… if you get sand in the oil, it sort of ruins the moment. Of course, those Spartans were probably impervious to such discomfort.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      He also thinks a lot about Turkish prisons.

    • Vecciojohn

      I’m Antonin!

      • No! I’m Antonin! (ehhh, fuck that, no. I have a great imagination, but I can’t make that throw from third)

    • BackDoorMan

      How much do you want to bet he wears leather calf-strapping sandals under his robes? It makes you feel virile – trust me.

  • Vecciojohn

    5-4, Roberts joins the libs. You heard it here first.

    • teddy21

      So you’re leaving Kennedy out of the majority?

      • Vecciojohn

        I’m probably overreacting to his remarks today, quoted in part above. I have a tototally unfounded idea that the reason Ginsburg dropped her big hint a couple of weeks ago is because she has some insight into Roberts’ thinking about this.

        • sohadicouldsplit

          Damn I hope you’re right. My fatalism and experience otherwise makes me think that if he is indeed a closet case, he’ll overcompensate by going the other way. He’s no doubt aware of the rumors; one presumes he wouldn’t be happy about them, true or not. But I guess if David Koch of all people can crack his door open a little–there may be hope! The times, they are a-changin”!!

    • Zippy

      5-4 with Kennedy as reluctant swing

    • SFRealness

      Having just gone through law school and read EVERY SINGLE PAINFUL Kennedy opinion of the past 10 years, I can’t imagine Kennedy siding against same-sex marriage. I would assume that he would side with the majority in order to write the majority opinion. What is possible is that he may only answer “yes” to the second question….in which case his opinion might be a separate concurrence. I could see this being 6-3 with Roberts, but with Kennedy taking a more conservative line.

  • Rabbit_Rebozo

    What I heard was, one, marriage is fundamental. I mean, certainly that’s true for 10,000 years.

    Silly judge! Doesn’t he know the world’s only 6,000 years old?

    • HogeyeGrex

      Were you there?

      • Alex Grey

        No, but Uranium 235 was… it has a half life of 704 million years. That is significantly longer than 6000 years, go figure.

        • dansezlajavanaise

          how do you know? have you seen it?

  • chascates

    Since so many of the Court is Catholic and Catholic priests are international known for sodomizing children I would think the Father/Son/Space Ghost will bless this case and through Scalia and Thomas’s tears marriage equality will be the law of the land and we’ll all live happily ever after.

  • Bren

    That fucking Plato should have a big heap of bullshit thrown all over him. If he and his beau had got themselves together with their friends and had a pizza reception we wouldn’t be in this mess now.

    • Msgr_Moment

      Tomato is a New World crop. Funny how we redefined pizza less than a millennium ago.

  • Callyson

    Oh, for fuck’s sake…from the HuffPo Hill newsletter (can’t link because it’s in my e-mail and for some reason the HuffyPo link in the e-mail isn’t working):

    “Tuesday’s high-profile Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage was briefly interrupted by a man screaming about gay people going to hell. About half an hour into oral arguments, the man, who was sitting in the audience, suddenly jumped up and started shouting his views. ‘If you support gay marriage, you will burn in hell!’ the man shouted as he was dragged out of the room. ‘Homosexuality is an abomination!’ … At least one of the justices didn’t seem to mind the interruption. ‘It was rather refreshing, actually,’ Justice Antonin Scalia said to laughs.”

    Yo, Justice Scalia?

    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–G2sATbY0–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/uucyuxistlreh427gro5.gif

    • Me not sure

      I really hope that Scalia doesn’t go to hell. Heaven would be fine. When does the next train leave?

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Just get on it and go, Tony.

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        I’m of the same mind. We may just stick him in Purgatory “indefinitely”.
        In the context of eternity, the meaning of indefinitely becomes a bit, well, indefinite – but he’ll have plenty of time to figure it out.

        • Me not sure

          As long as he clears earth, he can go to Mars for all I care.

        • cleos_mom

          According to the RC teaching, everyone in Purgatory eventually goes to Heaven. But a good lawyer could delay that by at least a few, um, millenia.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            “Eventually”, in the course of eternity, is a slippery concept.

      • TootsStansbury

        Well now damnit. You have me tempted to order a few Meat Lover Extreme pizzas with fried eggs on top to be delivered to his Chambers.

        • Me not sure

          Dubble cheez pleez!

    • Meanwhile, Strip Search Sammy and Clarence Thomas were taking notes.
      ~

    • TootsStansbury

      Peanut butter and chocolate? Good. Government and religion? Bad.

  • georgiaburning

    If you believe gays should not be allowed to marry then don’t marry one.

    • willi0000000

      but . . . but . . . but . . .what if you’re drunk and only do it once?

      • Me not sure

        Can Pat Robertson perform the service?

    • SFRealness

      But if your husband gets drunk and accidentally marries another dude from church ONE TIME it’s okay.

      • georgiaburning

        those Knights of Columbus retreats get wild sometimes

        • BackDoorMan

          … and you DON’T want to know what goes on at those Oddfellows encounter weekends.

          • jmk

            Well… it’s right there in the name.

  • teddy21

    Those anti-equality people who are of the view that the court will side with them come June need to remember that the court had several chances last year to stop the progress of marriage equality and put it on hold until they heard this case. In every one of those cases they did not. They allowed lower court rulings to stand which resulted in thousands and thousands of LGBT couples getting married. It defies logic to think the court doesn’t have 5 votes in favor of same sex marriage if they couldn’t even come up with 4 votes (all that’s required) to issue a stay until this case was decided. If anyone is looking to read the tea leaves, they would be wise to look at the justices’ actions rather than their words today.

    • sohadicouldsplit

      *listens to Teddy, takes deep breath, calms down a bit…*

      Thanks handsome!!!

      • teddy21

        Anytime beautiful!!!

    • Villago Delenda Est

      I recall an episode of L.A. Law in which vials of bull semen were stolen, and the expert testimony to establish the value of the semen included a line about “an aroused bull will mount almost anything”.

      Well, there you go!

      • BackDoorMan

        … hmm… wonder if this will work as a pick up line when asked…
        “What’s your sign?”…
        “Taurus… and you know, an aroused bull will mount almost anything”.
        (I’m not getting laid, am I?)

        • jmk

          No. No, you are not.

        • cleos_mom

          Taurus is my rising sign. That might be useful if I was another gender.

        • dansezlajavanaise

          oh, excuse me, i just recognized my cousin over there.

    • Vecciojohn

      A cow trying to fuck a car is probably one of the least weird things that happened in Florida today.

    • sohadicouldsplit

      Please DO NOT show this photo to Rick Santorum. We’ve got enough on our plates right now as it is.

      • cousin itt

        License plates?

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      Hoofs up, don’t shoot!

    • Celtic_Gnome

      Okay, now that can’t be legal no matter what the Constitution says,

      • jmk

        Of course not. Cars can’t legally consent.

      • cleos_mom

        If it was a Charolais bull, it would be different. As it stands…

        OUT WITH THE TASER!

        • ThatDale

          Or a Chevrolet bull.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    As usual, the “Christians” are obsessing over the sex, and ignoring the more practical aspects of marriage, which are the root reasons for the institution in the first place.

    • jmk

      It always amuses me how clearly the bigots in this country signal that marriage – to them – is nothing more than a license to have sex, no matter how much nattering they do about “fundamental units of society” or “will no one think about the children??”

  • cousin itt

    See, FOX viewers were right about Hillary all along!

    • cleos_mom

      “Hilvetica”

  • DahBoner

    Fabric and delicate children ears? Seriously? That’s all they got as evidence?
    http://media0.giphy.com/media/nYogYgSmIJaIo/200w_d.gif

  • HogeyeGrex

    1.)

    And obviously, the chief justice forgot to check THE BIBLE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

    • major_asshole

      I humbly thank you for posting that. I’m a fan of Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian, and I have thusly shared this video on Facebook with everyone I know.

  • HogeyeGrex

    B.)

    I’m concerned about the wisdom of this Court imposing through the Constitution a — a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons. They are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of.

    http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/marriage.png

    • Zippy

      THIS

      As always, we have to drag the bigots, kicking and screaming, into a new era. But eventually, all but the most hard core come around to accepting the new ideas

      • Villago Delenda Est

        I don’t demand that they accept them.

        I only ask that they tolerate the rights of others to be treated equally.

        • Zippy

          yup, I don’t care what they think or how they worship, but they need to understand that they must treat everyone equally

          • BackDoorMan

            … that whole “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” seems to have been lost in the translation/interpretation of the civilization-spanning Golden Rule.

          • jmk

            As Kant pointed out, that whole “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” can be twisted to allow you to lie to, manipulate, and force people to do things “for their own good” and still think of yourself as moral. He pointed out that a far better foundation for morality is to respect your own autonomy and the autonomy of others.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            This is where Libertarians FAIL, because they don’t get that the restrictions on their autonomy are due to violations of the autonomy of others.

        • handyhippie65

          tolerance and freedom are like chocolate and peanut butter, they just go together.

      • cleos_mom

        And some of the homophobic churches, especially those of the genteel variety (“after all, homosexuality is no worse a sin than arson!”) will be claiming that they were in favor of it all along. And no one will dispute it; hissterie iz 2 hard.

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      1995? Are you freakin’ kidding me?

  • Lot_49

    Woulda been cool if Roberts had waited until the oral (heh-heh) arguments were done and just said, “Aw fuck it, no need to wait till June. I direct a 9-0 verdict. Let the ghey marriages begin!”

  • Relativicus

    Gay marriage for everyone would be cool because then straight guys like Rep. Boehning would be free to marry any woman or a man they choose!

    • BackDoorMan

      Not if they said no. And I’m guessing most, if not all of the ones he chose would decline. Unless of course, no means yes, in which case… ah, fuckit, I’m outta here.

      • Relativicus

        Just feed them Bud Lights

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    “We’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”

    Wut.

    Word salad is not what you should be serving to the Supreme Court.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Somehow, it’s now a matter of “individual liberty” to stick your nose into other people’s homes to monitor their activity.

      • Blank Ron

        Liberty to be an intrusive, judgmental busybody. One liberty they will cling to come hell or high water…

      • BackDoorMan

        … and not just their homes, but their bedrooms, and vaginas, and internet surfing habits. “Pursuit Of Happiness”? Yeah… I’ll tell you what your happiness is, because I’m appointed to do so by the God-in-my-mind.

    • SFRealness

      It’s just like the fundamental liberty interest that bigots have in discriminating against other people. We can’t take away their freedom to deny other people freedom!

      It takes awhile to wrap your head around conservative logic, I know.

    • major_asshole

      Did he take notes from Sarah? Because that’s a terrible idea.

      Seriously, the woman–actually, I can’t make a joke. They’re all overplayed.

  • TootsStansbury

    Why is this even a thing? It has nothing to do with “religion”, it is to do with equal treatment under the law. I’m not a lawyer type but the arguments against the Gays being allowed to have the same goddamn rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage laws are the shyte. Your marriage license is issued by the Government; the church part is separate. Such bullshit. Jim Crow for gays; apartheid for the people of color. The fuck is wrong with this stupid goddamn place?

    • House0fTheBlueLights

      The fuck is wrong with this stupid goddamn place?

      Ask Baltimore.

      • TootsStansbury

        Gods forbid we pull up our Giranimals as a country and address the problems that concern this country. One of them being the ongoing racism and the occupational force the the police have become. Horrible. It needs to be tackled Nationwide.

        • cleos_mom

          If unequal standing under the law isn’t one of “the problems that concern this country” I don’t know what is.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Extremely fallible human beings have infested this country.

    • cleos_mom

      “Your marriage license is issued by the Government; the church part is separate.”

      Another illustration of the absurdity of the “get the Gubber Mint outta the marriage business” line.

  • Nick.Trite

    I feel like Scalia did used to be a great justice but over the past few years he’s just gotten more and more radicalized to the point where it feels like he’s totally abandoned his commitment to formalism. I wonder a lot what happened to cause that.

    • OrdinaryJoe

      He started drinking TEA.

    • onedollarjuana

      Pillow talk with Clarence.

      • JustPixelz

        Thomas just listens.

    • Joshua Norton

      He realized that any kind of opus dei, made up, right wing BS interpretation that popped into his pointy head had a good chance of becoming law of the land.

      I remember an interview he gave when the Gore and Bush campaigns started and he said if Gore won he’d leave the court because he found it frustrating to be outnumbered by lib judges. He was in his glory when Bush v. Gore landed on his desk. And he laughably claimed that politics never even entered into his decision. Riiiiiight!

      He’s been out of control since then.

  • TheBidenator

    Personally I think it’s going to be 5-4 in favor of allowing gay people to marry…there is JUST enough civil libertarian bent to John Roberts that he’ll side against the bigots. I find the whole situation fascinating as an exercise in intrusive government and the astounding level social whackjob conservatives will go to foist their beliefs on America. Here’s some advice to that special breed of wingnut out there who considers it an injustice for us to know what is in fracking fluid but that it’s perfectly just for the state to intrude into the private bedroom of happy people: go fuck yourselves. The public isn’t buying and in fact as is the case of so many other issues involving social conservatism the polling suggests they’re losing on every front from school prayer, to abortion to gay marriage- the further out we go the less popular their positions become.

    Maybe your imaginary friend that under any other circumstance would have you diagnosed as schizophrenic will be upset (though I think fig eaters incur a lot more wrath given how many times god wants to kill, kill, kill them!) but for the rest of us in reality we can’t be bothered with corporeal nonsense. Go home, pray do whatever it is you do but keep it to yourself because I for one am so sick of hearing religion tossed around to justify fucking bigoted, backwards belief that is predicated not on the bible but more on demented secular cultural traditions from the Antebellum South…just shut the fuck up about it already.

    • Celtic_Gnome

      The problem is that they do not allow any dissenting arguments into their inner circle. Everyone they know, everyone in their families and churches, everyone they socialize with, believes exactly as they do, and it’s a very small leap from there to believe that everyone in the world believes the same also.

    • BackDoorMan

      Now, now, don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel.
      Personally, I think it should be 9-0 in favour of… because, oh I don’t know, fuck, logic.
      Never mind that this shouldn’t even be an issue.

  • House0fTheBlueLights

    This “it’s always been the definition” and “millenia of tradition” thing makes me crazy. “Hey, we’ve been homophobic bigots forever, so that makes it ok!”

  • Zippy

    Hey Clarence, if we had waited to be sure as Kennedy hinted, if we waited until everyone was on board, you wouldn’t be married to Ginny today. Think long and hard about that one, uncle Thomas

    • Lot_49

      Virginia vs Loving, motherfucker!

      • BackDoorMan

        … your precedent is where you find it. Let the cherry-picking begin!
        For some SCOTUS members, this means ignoring everything they disagree with.

    • cleos_mom

      Thomas thinks?

  • House0fTheBlueLights

    “People feel very differently about
    something if they have a chance to vote on it”

    Soooo, it’s okay to put basic human rights to a vote….

  • PigDootsMolloy

    individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation or who to marry or not marry
    Read more at http://wonkette.com/584136/supreme-court-rams-gay-marriage-nonsense-down-your-earholes-a-wonkette-transcriber#pePEBKcYslukdh6r.99
    Did Justice Sotomayor just inadvertently side with the “it’s a choice” crowd regarding sexual orientation?

    • Biff52

      I’m hoping it was just an inarticulate phrase, but who knows–the right wing is convinced she’s a Subaru-driving flannel-wearing carpet-muncher anyway.

    • mfp

      hmmm…yaknow, i’m not gay (at least, not since undergrad days)–but i’ve always thought that the ‘it’s not a choice’ argument is beside the point…so, i dont care if justice sotomayor sided with the ‘it’s a choice’ crowd, and in this context, neither should anyone else–besides, that ‘crowd’ should never have been ceded the position that it makes a difference whether gayness is a choice (or not) in the first place–to me, the ‘born this way/choice’ paradigm is as irrelevant as the ‘but it’s been this way for millenia’ argument

      in other words, why does it matter if being gay is a choice or not?…’gayness’ (or not) is an individual’s preference/choice/nature (take your pick) regarding his/her sexual orientation, and should be considered as an expression of one’s inalienable rights of personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and therefore, the full rights, recognition and protections of marriage (and everything else) should be afforded to gays as they are to non-gays

      i’ve never understood why that’s so fucking difficult to figure out

      • BackDoorMan

        Ladies and Gents – we have hit at the crux of the argument.
        IF being gay is a choice (it’s not, unless you figure it will advance your career), then why is anyone allowed to discriminate on the basis of choice?
        If you choose to pierce/tattoo your body, shave 3/4 of your head and dye what’s left purple… can I refuse to hire you, rent you an apartment, sell you products from my business, etc. ad-INFUCKIN-itum. ??? … Jus’ axin’…

      • cleos_mom

        If discrimination can be rationalized on the basis of choice, let’s start taking the churches and doing a major revision of the First Amendment.

  • MrBlobfish

    This is just like that time when me, Janet and Chrissy got locked in the Regal Beagle that one time.

  • JustPixelz

    Thank you Ms Gray … or should I say Your Honor

  • Bill T.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, nothing makes you feel like a second class citizen more than depending on others to vote for your first class status.

    • Warpde

      Ahhhh! Reminds me of the Titanic.
      Oh wait.

  • toomanyrappers

    Ah, yes. Ancient Greece: the conservative paradise.

    The fractured set of warring states that fought, bickered, and weakened one another until they collapsed. Let’s have all the states do what they want, right?

    By the way, Socrates and his pupils were complaining about the shortcomings of the polis. Just sayin’.

    Love your stupid Sparta movie, kiddies? Explain the Helots to me. Tell why that’s ok.

    Pffftt… Fuck Ancient Greece.

  • malsperanza

    As Scalia and Alito are no doubt aware, it wasn’t until 1965–twenty years after the Holocaust–that the Catholic church stopped calling Jews Christ-killers. The Vatican didn’t exactly embrace Jews, or even stop claiming that they were damned and an abomination, but it did stop trying to prevent Jews from having civil rights, and calling for pogroms against them, and so on. In 1970 it even got rid of that cute little passage in the Good Friday service in which good Christians were supposed to pray for the “faithless (perfidis) Jews” to be converted.

    Probably this is one of the Vatican II changes that Scalia and Alito regret. But it does remind us that the supposed timeless immutability of Catholic belief is a crock of shit. If the Catholic church can stop teaching its kiddies that Jews are the source of all evil in the world, it may eventually be able to tolerate the existence of homosexuals.

    • SnarkOff

      I still like to call Jews Christ-killers sometimes, but only for laughs, when I see them at parties.

      • elpinche

        Calling old white WASPs Nazis at parties is sort of a mixed bag.

        • BackDoorMan

          … yeah, just as I’ve learned that bursting into a heartfelt rendition of ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’ always gets a mixed reaction. Of course, it could be that I can’t carry a tune to save my life.

    • Steverino247

      If you get around on this planet, you’ll soon learn that the Catholic Church has attached itself to every possible host organism in order to survive. You can hardly recognize it at times, but it’s there all the same.

    • cleos_mom

      Not surprising. The Church of Rome fabricated its doctrine about Mary being “assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” in 1950, just 19 years before the first manned Moon landing. If the accounts of these “assumptions” are taken literally, both Jesus and his mother are still in orbit.

  • SnarkOff

    My god, Kaili Joy Gray, this was a ton of reporting work, and I hope you get paid handsomely for it.

    • Warpde

      5 will get you 10 she did it for the love of all invoved.

      • Bill Slider

        Exposure dollars.

    • BackDoorMan

      … agreed. And just to make sure she is, now is the time to open the wallet and make it rain in Wonkville. There’s a Donate thing on the Home Page.

  • Warpde

    I may want to get “throat-crammed”
    I may not.
    In the grande scheme of things.
    It’s my fucking choice.
    Can’t remember seeing the words “dogma rules” written into the – living document.- Constitution.

    P.S.. Is this considered a comment?

    • Anarchy Pony

      There are no comments here…

  • Mehmeisterjr

    “Is Not too Long; Did Read” a thing?

    • TS Idiot

      INTL;DR

    • jmk

      It is now

  • Manhattan123

    Best summation of the proceedings I read all day, even in the fancy schmancy New York Times.

  • Alex Grey

    No Dok Zoom means no ponies, this cannot be allowed…

    • j hentai

      i have a scientific reason:

      • Alex Grey

        Are you sure it’s not just because all unicorns are gay? Why else would they all live in Europe?

        • Anarchy Pony

          “Are you sure it’s not just because all unicorns are gay?” Been reading to much shipping?

          • Alex Grey

            There may be that too… I just finished, (on recommendation from Dok Zoom) “The Mare in the High Castle.” Plenty of dystopia, but unfortunately no shipping.

          • Alex Grey

            Just on principle, since we are talking about gay marriage…

          • janecita

            Ahh, that’s so sweet!

      • Anarchy Pony

        But Rainbow Dash isn’t a unicorn.

        • Alex Grey

          A valid point…

          • Usedtobeyellerdawg

            Perhaps she keeps a strap-on horn in the bedside table for weekends; You don’t know.

  • Enfant Terrible

    Wow, that was a terrific summary of today’s goings-on! That was actual journalism! Very much appreciated. One minor criticism – scrutiny is kind of a big deal, since it involves demonstrating a compelling public interest in continuing a policy, namely restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. I would like to know what the Court’s thoughts are on that matter… but then, I’m kind of a nerd about stuff like this.

  • Amy!

    Ummmmmmmm.

    Kennedy’s “can we change what’s been true for millennia” was also a softball question, and I’m depressed that no one stepped up for it.

    One word: slavery.

    Legal pretty much world-wide until around the turn of the nineteenth century, when increasing awareness of something that we might label “human rights” and “equality” came to be of more importance than the economic value of the institution and (not so coincidentally) the clear support for the institution in major religions, including christianity.

    (America’s race-based system of slavery is sort of a special case, but it fits the worldwide narrative, nonetheless)

    Seriously, when the argument runs to “but it’s always been this way!” the single most uplifting example I can think of is pointing to the abolition movement. Slavery, to that point, had always been with us, as inevitable as death, taxes, and political corruption. Enough people stood up to say “that ain’t right” that it is now internationally illegal.

    It’s one of the few things that gives me hope for humanity.

    And: relevant. The weak-sauce counter-arguments pretty much amounted to petulant, “but, but, but we’ve always hated those icky homos!” Like “but, but, but there have always been slaves! It’s in the BIE bull!”

    • SFRealness

      That entire argument had me screaming at my computer almost, because it addition to that, *it isn’t true.*

      Ancient Egypt recognized same-sex unions at various times. So did the Greeks. So did the early Christian church (although there’s some debate about what a “marriage” meant back then and whether the ritual for two men constituted one). So have various indigenous societies around the world.

      So the idea that *every* society has *always* had only opposite-sex marriage is simply not true, and I wish that had actually been argued.

      • Hardly Ideal

        Pretty OT, but it reminds me of the deal against women serving combat roles in the military; anybody who screeches “you can’t do that! This is how it’s always been!” are generally people who haven’t been paying attention.

    • Alex Grey

      Yes because marriage is between………

      • crazytimes2

        Two consenting adults.

        • Alex Grey

          Yeah, but what about the not so consenting adults? Like the victim of the rapist,
          or the slave, or the “woman’s property” or the prisoner of war…?

          • Alex Grey

            Or were you saying any two consenting adults should be free to marry? If so I retract my last message.

          • crazytimes2

            What are you talking about?

          • Alex Grey

            I think I just misunderstood your comment…

      • georgiaburning

        Nice chart, a copy should be pinned up on the bulletin board in every Baptist chirch

        • Alex Grey

          One can only wish… Perhaps the chart could also include other answers. Thankfully you can find the questions here.

  • Celtic_Gnome

    I, as a white heterosexual married male, do affirm and attest that I have no problem with gay marriage for everyone. However, living on a fixed income will affect the decision-making process in wedding presents, so let’s not go hog wild in that department.

    • Alex Grey

      Are you certain that your marriage will not suddenly, and abruptly end, if one of your neighbors gets gay married?

      • BackDoorMan

        Alex… it occurs to me you might be new around here, so I just thought I’d mention that *snark* is the guiding principle of this place. As such, if you re-read Celtic_Gnome, I think the sardonic nature of his comment will be obvious. If comments were allowed here, that is.

        • Alex Grey

          Back at ya, I was snarking (is that even a word?) too.

      • cleos_mom

        Or that those two nice women down the street getting married won’t result in “400,000 abortions”?

        • Alex Grey

          400,000 abortions! OMG, let us do our very best to screw them over, F***ing sluts! They should be forced to give birth to children they are not prepared to take care of!!!

      • Hardly Ideal

        I think a World of Warcraft addiction would have a much better chance of ruining my marriage than any pride parade/gay orgy would, short of a parade float running one of us over.

  • handyhippie65

    thanx for wading through the river of crap to find the nuggets.

  • Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….

    But now explain why the state has any business “defining” what marriage is no matter what that definition might be. Why the Hell do we let the state “license” one of the most personal of relationships between two — or among three or more — people? The “civil rights” in question should not be about what the state acknowledges, or worse, codifies and imposes, it should be about what people are free to embrace and celebrate with complete disregard to what the state — or the “people” it purportedly represents — sanctions.

    Oh wait, I forgot. The point is to force others to “accept” what they believe to be unacceptable and to enable access to government benefits and other considerations based on marital status which really have no business being codified into law — especially at the federal level which does not itself “license” nor otherwise promulgate marriage.

    • georgiaburning

      The argument as to whether personal relationships, such as marriage, should enable access to special benefits is a separate issue. If you believe that these benefits should not be a part of law, that’s your right; but there’s quite a large body of legal and scriptural tradition supporting their existence.

      • Scriptural tradition is fine for those who embrace a given tradition. However, it provides no basis in law for a secular representative republic like the United States.

        As for the existing legal tradition, that is the core of the argument with respect to governments’ definition of marriage. Absent that legal tradition, there is no reason for anyone to care what any politician believes to be the “proper” definition of marriage. Well, aside from some hypothetical local jurisdiction which relies heavily on marriage licensing revenue to fund their other activities…

        Still, millions of Americans manage quite well without government issued marriage licenses and the law already has to accommodate their children and the protection of their civil rights. Our legal tradition can already operate in the absence of marriage defined and licensed by the state. Given the toxic politics over marriage today (and all that for which the “debate” is simply a proxy), the best solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether and let people get on with living their lives without others trying to impose their prejudices upon them by force of law.

    • Spotts1701

      It’s more than “benefits”, my friend. There are a lot of other, contractual things (mostly property rights, custodial relationships, medical decision-making, etc.) that really only work in a two-party marriage system.

      Example: Spouse #1 is in a coma and on life support. They have no advanced directives to dictate to the doctor what to do in those circumstances. Spouse #2 wants the doctors to use whatever methods necessary to keep them alive. Spouse #3 believes that Spouse #1 would want all extraordinary measures stopped. If, under the law, both Spouse #2 and Spouse #3 have equal standing it would become an impossible situation.

      • cleos_mom

        Which is why, when the Bright Kid waves his hand in the air saying “I know! I know! Let’s get the government out of the marriage business!” he doesn’t get Pupil Of the Year award.

        Not to mention the inconvenient fact that weddings are a business; marriage isn’t.

        • The fact that government provides default legal consequences to people who marry is not an argument for continuing the practice. Nor does it justify the requirement to obtain a license from government to acquire those default legal consequences. After all, there are millions of Americans today who live together in relationships indistinguishable from those who have marriage licenses who nonetheless need to have inheritance, medical directives, etc. addressed for them and their children. Those several million people already demonstrate that modern life is possible without state licensing of their relationships.

          Besides, if we continue insisting that government “define” marriage, we are going to have to revisit polygamy. After all, it has significant precedence throughout human history, including its practice by a great many people featured in the same Judeo-Christian-Islamic scripture which some use to justify their own definitions of marriage with preclude same-sex couples. Moreover, nearly half of married people today are already serial polygamists…

          Or, we can get government out of the business of defining, legislating, and licensing marriage and thereby avoid a great deal of ugly “debate” and inevitable coercion on the part of those who gain even a temporary political advantage.

          • cleos_mom

            Hey, you’re welcome to convince married couples (straight and gay) around the country of the wisdom of giving up almost 1,000 benefits reserved for married couples.

            Knock yourself out. You’re going to hear GET OFF MY PORCH a lot; that will give you at least one common experience with Jehovah Witness missionaries.

          • Sure, once the politicians buy votes, they usually stay bought. The power of other peoples’ money in the hands of the people who most covet power. By all means, let’s continue the compounding of problems which comes from giving politicians and bureaucrats ever more power to “fix” the problems arising from the power they have previously obtained. What could go wrong? Good thing Quantitative Easing has proven the government can now finance everything it desires simply by “selling” bonds to itself. The future looks brighter and brighter everyday…as seen by the light of the increasing number of burning tires — figurative and a few literal — set alight by ever angrier people on the left and right in the struggle over the balance of power, much of which should never be ceded to the government in the first place.

        • As for, “Not to mention the inconvenient fact that weddings are a business; marriage isn’t.”

          The government trades in marriage today. Money is exchanged for licenses. That is a business…as are all the “benefits,” tax breaks, and every other financial transaction in which the government engages as part of its marriage business. My point is that marriage should be nothing more than a relationship whose obligations and benefits are determined solely by those who enter into marriage within the context of whatever community to which they belong — where community is not a legal jurisdiction imposed by the state, but is instead the voluntary association of people who share a common interest, including those who embrace a particular religious tradition. Take away the licensing as well as the financial benefits and consequences the government provides and you will go a very long way in ending the marriage business which does, in fact, operate today.

      • Michael Diamond

        Western marriage, despite the modern conception and usage, was actually quite impersonal at its roots as relates the people getting married…it was a transactional relationship which, in essence, transferred ownership/rights to a woman from the father to the groom. It had very little to do with the relationship between the people being married, or often with their feelings on the matter of being married (to this particular person, or in general).

        I agree that the theoretical best solution in this case is not to further entrench the .gov in marriage, and that ideally we’d see the institution become purely social/religious in nature, but we must acknowledge how marriage started to understand where we are. Given the baggage that comes with the institution, ineheritence, etc., we might best hope the .gov gives legal civil union to all who ask, and leaves off the question of “marriage” to individuals and the communities they choose to belong to.

  • dshwa

    So his argument was Roe v Wade said the state can’t interfere in a person’s private medical decisions which therefore means the state can interfere with a person’s private marriage decisions.
    Dude even Thomas isn’t dumb enough to buy that one.

    • Alex Grey

      The Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)

      • dshwa

        Yeah I know the amendment. It’s his argument that doesn’t make sense. If the right to privacy keeps the state from interfering with a woman’s right to choose, how does the same right prevent the court from approving gay marriage? That was the Michigan lawyer’s argument, and it made no sense to me.

        • Sheepshagger

          Man I’m a lawyer and I’ve argued some pretty shit cases brother. I wouldn’t want that one if they paid me in truckloads of whore diamonds. It’s a shitty brief!

          • Smarterthanyou

            Who would hire you talking like a drunk 14 year old sailor?

  • Alex Grey

    Rainbow Dash is not gay… probably…

  • Marriage has been defined for a millennia so that the alpha male can have the state enforce his claim to what is his. These days many who are so opposed to changing the system are claiming their woman with a tacky tramp stamp.

  • ibwilliamsi

    “…and also he’s VERY CONCERNED about the “72
    million children in this country,” who would not even understand what
    the point of anything is anymore, if the Court recognizes equality for
    gay couples.”

    Here’s me on that – I think it’s probably easier to explain the point of gay people being married to children than it is to explain that corporations are people to children. Hell, I’m never going to understand that and I’m a fairly astute individual.

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      The “legal fiction” that a corporation is a person was invented so that corporations would be held liable for their debts – and for no other reason. That’s why Hobby Lobby is such complete insanity.

  • ganmerlad

    “closing of debate can close minds” Yeah well, the battle lines are firmly drawn, we’re both only waiting for one side to yell ‘Charge!’ Debate is long gone and was never actually in the building. The only way to settle it between us now is a battle to the death (which several christo-facists are threatening, and have been threatening for years) or SCOTUS saying emotions and religion don’t decide constitutional rights because “and liberty for all”.

  • VirginiaLady

    But have they considered that since corporations are now people too, if I am raped by a corporation, must I then gay marry them? Let’s get the most dumbest hypotheticals we can!

    • Sheepshagger

      You gonna be marrying a lot of corporations the way they wild out now.

      • VirginiaLady

        Corporate polygamy? I better start makin’ dem sammiches now if I gotta feed ’em all!

    • Ryan Denniston

      Just because two companies don’t produce any spinoffs doesn’t mean they cannot merge and acquire.

    • Rick Hill

      Get in line, you’re wife #23,435,923,666.

  • cheetojeebus

    Now if this has already been pointed out please excuse, but it seems to me we have a few, maybe 2-3 idiots serving on the Supreme Court. Fucking idiots actually.

  • Bill Slider

    Will I be able to gay marry but straight divorced? Or, will that take another millennium for the Court to decide?

  • Poly_Ester

    SCOTUS, restoring the American tradition of bigotry!

  • nightmoth

    “tradition” and “ewww gross” and “states’ rights” and “some people don’t like it” and “Won’t someone please think of the children?!”
    When I was a child, way down South in Dixie, those were the reasons why marriage between black people and white were totally, actionably illegal. Times change, bitches.

  • Rick Hill

    Oh, well this is a dark day in American history. Next thing you know there’ll be some guy trying to marry his assault rifle.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    Sorry, Michigan and Alabama, but “Eeeew!” is not a compelling state interest.

Previous articleJesus Saves Oklahoma Rep From Murdering Himself With Fire For The Unborn Babies
Next articleJeb Bush Knows All About Being An Immigrant, Except The Being An Immigrant Part