Say what now?

We have seen many laughable rationalizations for upholding bans on marriage equality over the years, and especially in the last few months before the Supreme Court rules, once and for all, that those bans are not constitutional. (Yes, that’s probably definitely we are pretty darn sure going to happen real soon.) Bigots say equality will mean the end of the world or at least make politicians get drunk and crash their boats into children. And it will cause a million more abortions and force dudes to have to explain periods to their daughters, can you EVEN IMAGINE.

Gays started doing legal marriage to each other in Massachusetts more than 10 years ago, though, and none of that has happened, so maybe the fretting pearl-clutchers are wrong? (They are.)

But one of the best (yeah, we mean worst, SARCASM) arguments against equality came from Michigan’s Special Assistant Attorney General John J. Bursch, during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, after all of his other arguments were clearly failing to persuade any of the justices:

And­­ and you can draw the analogy to the abortion context. And I’m reluctant to bring that up, but, you know, in Roe v. Wade and Casey, this Court says the government cannot interfere in that private choice. That’s a fundamental right. In Maher, the Court says but a woman cannot force the government to come participate in that by paying for it. Likewise here.

For that one person out there who didn’t know, Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court case that determined in 1973 that women have a right to terminate their pregnancies because it’s none of the government’s damn business what they do with their ladyparts. This is also, as far as we know, the very first time anyone holding a conservative position has approvingly cited that case, because ever since it was decided, social conservatives — the same schmucks who think gay couples are stealing their freedom — have insisted it’s not a legitimate ruling, and they’ve been trying to kill it with fire (and bombs and guns and anthrax) ever since.

But what does that have to do with marriage equality? Oh, nothing at all. That is why we are laughing at Mr. Bursch for drawing what he knows is a piss-poor analogy, which is why he’s “reluctant” to do it in the first place. A woman’s “private choice” to be a mommy or not be a mommy is in no way like a state’s not-private (because it is the state, see, which is by definition public, not private) choice to deny marriage licenses to couples bigots don’t like. So if abortion is a fundamental right, discriminating against gays is too. Wait, no, that is incorrect. And dumb. Where the hell did this guy get his degree — Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University “School” of “Law”?

Mr. Bursch mentions two later Supreme Court cases: Maher v. Roe, which found that the state cannot be forced to pay for abortions — that’s relevant because The Gays are trying to force states to pay for their weddings? — and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said (more or less), “Yo, did you not hear us the first time? Abortion is a legal fundamental right, sheesh!” So what do those cases have to do with marriage equality? Um, nothing again? Right! But in case the abortion comparison doesn’t work for you, Mr. Bursch has another analogy that also doesn’t work, except for the LOLs.

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

How gay

Y’all remember what the Lawrence v. Texas case is, right? The one that determined, way back in 2003, that doing buttsex is not a crime? Justice Scalia sure does; he’s still fuming about it, especially because his predictions are now coming true!

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

Scalia was right, of course, because the homosexual agenda has taken over America, with people no longer morally shaming The Gays for buttsexing and scissoring (even though that still happens all the time). Hell, even the lawyer who is there to argue against marriage equality is saying the 12-year-old judicial activism that codified sodomy is valid and right, which seems like a terrific way to alienate his guaranteed ally on the Court, and also a really terrible way to argue that because the government cannot toss your gay butt in jail for gaying, because how you fuck in the privacy of your own bedroom (or kitchen floor or shower or backseat of a car or whatever, that’s up to you, no judgment) is none of the government’s business, it must respect Michigan’s fundamental right to say “Gross, dude, marriage license denied.”

Is that not one of the dumbest and most desperate arguments for why states have a constitutional right to discriminate against gay couples? It sure is, and we should know, because we’ve read just about all of ’em. Here’s Justice Kagan explaining just how dumb it is:

See, to me it seems as though you are doing something very different that we’ve never done before, which is you are defining constitutional rights in terms of the kinds of people that can exercise them. And I don’t think we’ve really ever done that. Where we’ve seen a constitutional right, we have not defined it by these people can exercise it, but these people can’t, especially in a case where the claims are both rights­-based and equality-­based.

I mean, it would be like saying in Lawrence, well, there’s only a right to intimate activity for heterosexual people and not a right to intimate sexual activity for gays and lesbians. And, of course, we didn’t do that. Once we understood that there was a right to engage in intimate activity, it was a right for everybody.

That’s such a good explanation for why Mr. Bursch is just flat-out dead WRONG that even he responds, “Absolutely,” probably while Justice Scalia quietly drives a rusty nail into his thigh.

We can’t really blame Mr. Bursch for trying to do his job by coming up with a reason, any reason, for the Court to rule that states like his may continue to discriminate against gay couples. None of his other, more traditional arguments — ancient traditions, think of the children, liberty, blah blah — seemed persuasive (because they are not). But damn if his abortion-and-buttsex reasoning isn’t so incredibly bad that yes, we are that much more convinced the Supreme Court will recognize that of course the Constitution protects gays and lesbians, so open up and say “ahhhhhh” because GAY MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE! is coming.



Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • OrdinaryJoe

    “…because GAY MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE! is coming.”

    From your keyboard to God’s inbox.

  • BearGHAZI

    I got your ‘moral opprobrium’ right here, Scalia!

  • elviouslyqueer

    It says something that Bursch’s arguments were so bad (how bad were they?) that even Scalia had to school him.

    And when you’ve lost Scalia, you might as well just go home, open a bag of Takis, and think about all the horrible decisions you’ve made in your life.

    • nmmagyar

      But no matter how horridly the argument was made, Fat Tony will still vote in favor of the status quo

  • chascates

    To the Justice who said marriage between a man and a woman has been a tradition for millenia: for millenia women were considered chattel in that relationship. And the Court rules on Constitutional issues, not items in the Book of Leviticus.

    • whatwhomever

      Slavery was ok for millenia, until people realized that no, it isn’t.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Please not to throw historical fact in the face of “Christian” bigots.

        Thank you.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Didn’t the Notorious RBG point this out to the chunderheads?

      • malsperanza

        And so did Ruth Bader Ginsburg, honorary Rap Queen.

  • Lizzietish81

    You know who else is coming?

  • Vecciojohn

    Yes, you have to be the product of the “law-profession culture” to be in favor of lifting the moral opprobrium that has traditionally been associated by right wing Christers with queering off and lezing out. What are there, about 180,000,000 members off the law profession in this country now? Go home, Tony, you’re delusional.

  • Lizzietish81

    Look, if Michigan wants to abort its unwanted pregnancy it has that right!

    • Toomush_Infer

      Even if the “tech geek” doesn’t want to be aborted…

  • Callyson

    Time to trot this out again, just for John Bursch:

  • chicken thief

    Nothing bad happened in MA yet?! They elected Liz Warren who is going to wreck Wall Street and steal their freedom to financially fuck us!11!!!!!

  • Callyson

    you can force the State into these relationships by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone

    Recognition of a couple’s marriage = entering their relationship now? By that logic, the State is the biggest bigamist of all…

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      By the right of prima nocta, Rick Perry will now be forced to consumate every gay marriage. Thanks Obama!!!!111

  • fawkedifiknow

    Assuming Scalia was attempting to make a joke, my advice is that he keep his day job and not try to write for SNL. If he was being serious, maybe he should see if the College of Cardinals will consider him for Pope the next time they have an election. He certainly doesn’t belong in a supposedly secular position in this country.

  • SuspectedDemocrat

    Uh oh. Time to deploy the Wookie Defense.

    • mtn_philosoph

      “If Chewie lives on Endor, you must acquit dismiss.”

  • Toomush_Infer

    So….. argument aborted, then?…

  • MrBlobfish

    If the SCOTUS votes in favor of Gay Marriage, Newt Gingrich will be forced to cheat on his third wife.

    • Lizzietish81

      Assuming he hasn’t already

    • Vecciojohn

      Is she not well?

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Hair spray is no longer holding the helmet together

  • Tallmutha

    As far as I can tell, the argument goes something like: in Lawrence, the Court decided that anybody could do anything, so now the Court can’t turn around and tell Michigan it can’t discriminate against teh ghey. Find the fatal flaw!

    • deanbooth

      Good summary. States are people too, my friends!

  • Toomush_Infer

    Scalia obv doesn’t get it – what he does under his robes is his own bizness…

    • Vecciojohn

      “Oh, not entirely.” – Clarence

    • timpundit

      You mean he’s “adjusting the old penal code’?

  • Anarchy Pony

    Why do they really want to ban gay marriage? Maintaining privilege and the perceived superiority over people they view as less than human. That’s what it really boils down to for the bigots. Gays are icky, therefore inferior, therefore they shouldn’t have the things I have. If they have the things I have, how am I any better?

    • Bearpaw01

      I notice that the inane “special rights” argument has mostly disappeared, as people slowly caught on that in reality, it’s the Christia Right who are desperately trying to *keep* their special rights.

    • Blank Ron

      Which is their motivation for every single bit of their bigotry, against, well, everything.

  • Callyson

    the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct

    Thank you for being crystal clear about the fact that the anti-marriage equality side gives zero fucks about the children/traditional marriage/whatever other excuse du jour, but instead is focused on hating the LGBT community.

  • JustPixelz

    They’ve been promising us the End Times for years but so far nothing except an earthquake in Kansas. And Kansas is still there. I think Jesus doesn’t want to come back until there are some actual Christians instead of the selfish assfaces who preach screw thy neighbor in His name.

    • Callyson

      Religious Right Activist Finds LGBT Community “Subordinate To Satan”

  • chicken thief

    Bursch is saving his best argument for last – “this gay stuff makes me feel funny in my swimsuit area”.

    • Vecciojohn

      On the other hand, I believe that the swimsuit portion of the contest is usually last at oral argument, so don’t count him out yet.

      • MrBlobfish

        Scalia in Speedos? No thanks.

        • chicken thief

          But RGB in a micro-kini – Grrrrrrrr!!!!!

        • Mehmeisterjr

          I am both upvoting this and cursing you for putting that picture in my mind.

          • Alex Grey

            I dissent…

      • Mehmeisterjr

        When arguments before the Supreme Court closely resemble the babblings of a beauty pageant contestant, we have truly lowed the bar to the floor.

      • malsperanza

        The talent portion was a disappointment.

  • Wild Cat

    I heard the court’s token Uncle Tom has a miscegenation thing going for white ladies who wear tea bags on their Sunday Best bonnets, that he’s all married to her and everything. But that’s OK—at least he knew it was a gay’s dirty pubic hair on his Coke can, not in his Koch can..

  • VandeGraf

    Justice Scalia is desperately trying to frame his bigoted predilection in terms of the Constitution. As untenable as that might seem, he’ll probably vote that repulsive opinion, then rave about the other justices to some Fox News equivalent propagandist.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      James Madison had something to say about Justice Scalia’s pushing of his bigoted predilictions in the name of the Constitution.

      • Toomush_Infer

        I guess Scalia would just like to be a Predilictator…

  • SuspectedDemocrat

    If it please the court, I would like to enter into evidence this dick pic. If your honor would please check your text messages now, I think you’ll see how the state can be forced into a sexual relationship as established by precedent in Maher v Coulter.

  • MrBlobfish

    If there is a ray of hope coming out of Baltimore, it is the boys who are performing with the dance and flag teams of the marching bands I saw on the news. I can’t imagine that happening back in the day. Mrs. Blobfish is from Jamaica and she can’t imagine that ever ever ever happening there.

  • Mehmeisterjr

    Maybe Counselor Bursch thinks that because it begins with “anal” and analogy is something you pull out of your ass.

  • deanbooth

    One of the most important lessons in life is coming to realize how fucking stupid people are, even people in positions defined as “intellectual.”

    • Ricky Gay


  • Bill Slider

    We are getting close to that slogan I learned in college: Hurray, hurray the first of May, outdoor fucking starts that day.

  • I dunno. All these citations just seem to indicate that the government shouldn’t be telling people who they can and can’t marry. So thanks for the support, I guess, Mr. Bursch?

  • Villago Delenda Est

    See, to me it seems as though you are doing something very different
    that we’ve never done before, which is you are defining constitutional
    rights in terms of the kinds of people that can exercise them.

    Next thing you know, the descendants of chattel will be asserting they have a right to vote!

    • Blank Ron

      Okay, now you’re just being silly.

  • chicken thief

    All snark aside, I think everyone should give a hand to the various appellate courts and their finely written smackdowns of ‘traditional marriage’, some of which went out of their way to ridicule the RWNJ’s go to excuses for not recognizing marriage equality. Bursch is now stuck coming up with new, even weaker shit thanks to the conscientious work that went into the earlier decisions.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      It’s an illustration of this time-honored principle (in Carl Sandberg’s formulation):

      “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If
      the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are
      against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

      In this case, the unfortunate Mr. Bursch is reduced to pounding the table with his dick and screaming like little girl.

      • laineypc

        Little girl libelz!

  • deanbooth

    Is this the same guy who founded the John Bursch Society?

  • Mehmeisterjr

    With all due respect to Kaili Joy Gray, I think the more eager and horny readers should be warned that you cannot fuck in the back seat of a car if it is parked outside a private, closed garage. You especially cannot so fuck in the hereinbefore referenced locus if you are driving the car, also, too. Other than that, though, all the upcarets to KJG.

    • Wonkaholic

      If you can’t coit while driving the car, then why did God invent mile marker 69, hmmmmm?

      • Villago Delenda Est

        He also made the classic mistake of designating an Interstate 69.

        True story: Oregon route 569 is that way because originally it was Oregon route 69, but ODOT feared that sign thefts would be significant.

        • mtn_philosoph

          Gee, they could have just altered it by turning the number upside-down.

          Oh, wait…

      • bozilingus

        69? This can be easily done, if one has a convertible. (Telling for a friend…)

      • teddy21

        well technically that’s not coitus

        • teddy21

          Bill Clinton taught me that.

        • Mehmeisterjr

          Coitus ergo sum.

          • Msgr_Moment

            Coitus ergo sum cum.


        • mtn_philosoph

          It all depends on the meaning of the word “us.”

      • Mehmeisterjr

        This brings back memories of the much-missed ex-Governor of Nevada, the Hon. Jim Gibbons whose shenanigans and the side-splittingly funny articles thereon first drew me to Wonkette. Now there was a man for whom coiting in a moving car was the pinnacle of his accomplishments.

        • Msgr_Moment

          Hip, hip hooray for moving violations!

    • handyhippie65

      ever hear of road head? i think the downside was in “life according to garp”.

      • H0mer0

        I thought Jenny and her paramour were parked in the driveway already when Garp and the kids coasted into them.

        • handyhippie65

          possibly, i haven’t seen it in years. i just remember the loss, and have been worried all my adult life. sadly, i don’t have any to spare.

    • Blank Ron

      How about the front seat? Of a Ford Pinto? In my parents’ driveway?

  • data_ninja

    I had to look up what opprobrium was, because I couldn’t find it anywhere on the periodic table.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      It’s right there next to encomium.

      • Mikkal VanPelt

        A few elements after dumfucqium.

        • mtn_philosoph

          In between a pair o’ meese-ium.

  • Mehmeisterjr

    Check him out on Google:

    Love that bowtie!

    • teddy21

      I listened to the audio and my gaydar was pinging off the chart when he spoke.

      • Mehmeisterjr

        His Wikipedia article, which sounds like it was written by himself in a particularly self-adoring mood, claims that:

        “…his oral arguments [are] ‘remarkable’: ‘he’s sure-footed, never wavers from
        his coherent theory of the case, leaves nothing on the table, and ends
        on exactly the right note.'”

        I doubt if that reputation will stand after this desperate and sorry performance.

  • RoyalUglyDude

    What is it about conservatives and analogies? It’s like they know no other form of argument.

    • chicken thief

      It’s the ‘anal’ part that they just can’t stop thinking about.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Perhaps you can better understand the concept if I compare it to armadillos arguing before the Oxford Debating Society. Or, viewed from another angle, it is like a backhoe studying to become a ballerina.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Do you know how to avoid getting lost in a wilderness area? You take about a foot of fiber optic cable with you, and if you get lost, you bury it in the ground. Then a backhoe will come to your rescue!

        • Mehmeisterjr

          The more I know!

      • handyhippie65

        i have seen equipment ballet before. a group choreographed a routine using a number of vehicles. it is pretty cool. but i get your point.

        • Msgr_Moment

          Underwater synchronized backhoe ballet? Ain’t nothin’ finer.

        • H0mer0

          I think I saw that on “Bob the Builder” (I know, my boys are 16 and too old to watch it, but I still enjoy me some cartoons.)

          • handyhippie65

            someone did it for real. look on youtube. cartoons are the gravy on the ‘taters of life.

    • PirateCafe

      They like the first four letters?

  • Jaime Oria

    “I move for a bad law-guy thingy, your Excellencies” – J. J. Bursch (Esq.)

    *Esq. is short for Esquargot

  • Scooter

    “Did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?” asked Justice Samuel Alito.

    True story. Because obviously we should base our court decisions on ancient Greek culture instead of the Constitution.

    • Msgr_Moment

      I think this was covered in some of the gladiator movies he must have watched.

      • PirateCafe

        Or maybe, Spartacus.

  • Joshua Norton

    This is really gonna spice up those spouse swapping reality shows!

  • Fly

    All republican analogies are simple dog whistles.

  • Lascauxcaveman

    Since the subject came up in the post, I have a question for the lesbian ladies out there in Wonket land:

    Is “scissoring” an actual thing? I just assumed it was something that was invented by the porn industry, because straight male porn consumers like to watch hot chicks do it. Sort of like the ‘pearl necklace’ thing, which I’m guessing pretty much is done only in porn flicks.

    • Joshua Norton

      I always thought it was just a “South Park” thingie. But I’m not even remotely an expert on the matter….

      • Mehmeisterjr

        I cannot speak for lesbians but I believe, with Voltaire, that If scissoring did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

        • H0mer0

          for a second there, I thought you meant Wilde.

    • borninatrailer

      I can’t speak to the scissorin’ but with..

      “Sort of like the ‘pearl necklace’ thing”

      ..are you suggesting dudes flinging their spunk around and on imaginative locales is only a porn thing?

  • malsperanza

    I’m pretty sure the Gays are not trying to force the state to pay for their weddings because like all other USAmericans the Gays are big fans of private enterprise.

    Senate bill S.2145, currently making its way through committee, will force all pizzarias, florists, and bakers to donate their services for free to gay weddings. They were going to throw in wedding photographers but it seemed redundant.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      If the Gays do succeed in forcing the state to pay for their weddings, I foresee a movie starring, oh I dunno, Kevin James and some other hump, in which a guy pretends his straight marriage is a gay marriage in order to save on the costs, followed by a series of errors and then, let’s just say, hilarity ensues.

      The threat of this movie actually happening is the only compelling argument against gay marriage and that dumbfuck Bursch failed to make it!!!!11!11!!!!,!1

  • dslindc

    Perhaps he should have brought a snowball into the court. It works so well as an argument in the Senate!

    • Logic of Color

      Or maybe he and his co-counsel could have helpfully demonstrated the icky things that married gays might do. For the benefit of the court.

    • BackDoorMan

      … a disco ball would last longer, and be much more fabulous.

  • OneYieldRegular

    “Oh man, I thought I was just going to burp but I was so drunk that stomach acid came up and I totally bursched.”

  • teddy21

    So was this guy really saying that marriage equality would force governments into our icky gay relationships? Or did I read it wrong?

    • Swampgas_Man

      Because recognizing a relationship is the same as controlling it? I think that’s how the “logic” goes.

  • Zippy

    Teh gheys are not trying to force states to pay for their weddings, but they do want to force the state to take care of the tip for the pizza delivery guy

    • H0mer0

      Just don’t forget to tip your waitress. (rim shot)
      …..crickets chirp….
      Try the veal…

  • Bill T.

    The stench of Falwell’s rotten corpse is all over the anti-equality arguments.

  • Eric Van Bezooijen

    Perhaps I missed it in the transcripts, but I’m surprised that no one answered Scalia’s comment about the lack of legal same sex marriage prior to The Netherlands in 2001 by talking about the period of history before Abrahamic religions spread across the world. Native Americans had the concept of “two spirits” and respected their orientation before European settlers arrived.

    • Bearpaw01

      Because those societies were “primitive”, “uncivilized”, etc, etc, so the way they handled such things — or anything, really — is assumed to be irrelevant.

      • RachelK

        Basically, yeah. I don’t think the lawyers themselves think that way, but they know that the swing vote or votes (because Roberts seems conscious of his legacy, how he will be remembered, he’s bkind of a swing too) do. So bringing that up would only resonate with the justices you already have on your side. So they focus on concepts Kennedy likes, like “dignity” and don’t challenge the poor historical understanding.

        • Mehmeisterjr

          Strategy. For that very same strategic reason, I will refrain from noting that Robert’s legacy will still put him neck-and-neck with Taney. Don’t tell him, OK?

  • VirginiaLady

    After all, we ddon’t want THOSE kinds of people excersizing their constitutional rights now do we? Wink wink.

  • azeyote

    oral arguments – heh heh heh

    • Hardly Ideal

      Hee hee, they said “arguments.”

      • Mehmeisterjr

        Hee, hee, I thought they said oral unguents, aka Santorums.

  • Msgr_Moment

    RWNJ rationale for marriage equality? Bring on the End Times, Bitchez!!!

  • whitroth

    And what aggravates me most (or among the most) is the *fact* that this is *state* recognition of marriage, *not* religious recognition of marriage, and no one, esp. not anybody giving arguments right now, has brought up all the scholarship of the sixties and seventies, to the effect that the only legitimate interest that the *state* has in marriage is ->PROPERTY<-. Who do the kids belong to, and who owns the couple's *property*, and who is the legal *hjeir* to the *property*, and, on the side, who has the legal right to the money, including Social Security, pensions, and other income.

    On that basis, gay marriage, straight marriage, or mixed marriage with your dog is all legal, as long as the *property* and *money* is satisfied.

    mark "and I thought the Bible ™ said that you can have
    all the wives you can afford, like Solomon…."

  • Hard Little Machine

    In two years Wonkette will be screaming that gay couples should have special privileges in divorce proceedings that aren’t available to straight couples.

    • Mishyana

      Wonkette can’t scream. It’s a blog.

      • Hard Little Machine

        Looks like Wonkette is taking itself absurdly seriously.

        • Mehmeisterjr

          Oh yeah, Wonkette. Too seriously. That’ll fly, champ.

          • Hard Little Machine

            So my comment was deleted why? shits and giggles?

  • Me not sure

    If Scalia was gay he’d have to put a big x on his ass so people could tell it’s not the end that gives the blow jobs.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    Christians insist that gay people can only have extramarital sex? Yeah, that’s consistent.

    • It’s OK with Pat Robertson if it’s just the one time and he was drunk.

  • Alex Grey

    This is COMING!!1!11one!

  • DahBoner

    In Maher, the Court says but a woman cannot force the government to come…

Previous articleFlorida Frat Shut Down, Just For Whizzing On Flags And Cussing Disabled Veterans
Next articleAttention Lawyers: No One Should Stay In A Motel 6. Especially Your Clients.