SHARE

Actual SCOTUS ruling

In case you missed it, WE ARE ALL GAY MARRIED NOW. If you are a nerd, or a proud American, you might want to know exactly how the Supreme Court made that decision. And we are here to help, YOU’RE WELCOME.

The Supreme Court begins its murder of marriage inequality like so:

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.

This simple concept naturally makes Justice Scalia want to suffocate himself, as he footnotes in his dissent:

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning ofJohn Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

You do that, Scalia. Whatever gets you through the day.

A Brief History Of Marriage, ACTUALLY

Before the majority offers its legal reasoning for definitively throat-cramming all of U.S. America with marriage equality, Justice Kennedy gives a swirly “history” lesson on the meaning of marriage, throughout the “annals of human history”:

The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm.

It seems that Kennedy and his colleagues paid attention when Justice Notorious RBG schooled them during oral argument on the case, about how the definitions of marriage have changed throughout history, ACTUALLY, as Kennedy later notes:

Marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. […] As the role and status of women changed, the institution further evolved. Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. […] As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned.

These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage.

Translation? Suck it, haters. Suck it and swallow.

The opinion recites a brief history of the petitioners — couples from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, including yr Gay Wonkette’s pals Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his husband, Thomas Kostura, who simply wanted to live in gay-married peace and quiet, but oh no, their gay-hatin’ states couldn’t have that — and concludes:

Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined by its bond.

It Is TOO In The Constitution

Now for some law talk. For the benefit of those who might not be familiar with the Constitution, some quick ‘splaining:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. […] In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

For anyone who might want to complain, we suggest they refresh their memories about last year’s decision on Hobby Lobby, which found that the Constitution also protects your right to believe birth control is abortion, which the Bible says is bad, and if you say the magic words “sincere religious beliefs,” you’re exempt from following certain laws you don’t like. Guess what! That little-known constitutional codicil covers more than just Hobby Lobby. Who knew?

Oh, and for those who cry “liberty” in opposition to equality? Yeah, about that:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

The justices are also aware of all internet traditions accusing them of being judicial activists, making up laws about the constitutional right to marriage, which they are not allowed to do, so the Court kills that dead by listing all the prior cases in which the Court has ruled on marriage, TAKE THAT:

This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

That’s gotta hurt, if you are a bigot.

It’s Nobody’s Bidness Who You Wanna Marry

The Court relies heavily on Loving v. Virginia, the case that said white people and black people can get married if they want to get married, and it’s nobody’s business but their own. While conservatives have insisted that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, the Supreme Court says nope, it’s exactly the same:

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection
between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. […] Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.

Also, here is your new definition of marriage. Feel free to needlepoint it on a throw pillow:

The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

We like that a whole lot better than the preferred conservative definition: “one dude who sticks his dick in his one wife to make a lot of babies, for Jesus, even if he is secretly getting some gay strange on the side.” Seems more America, dontcha think?

Gays Are Good For Marriage. Seriously.

This is where the Court starts straight-up trolling the haters:

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. This point was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception.

See, homosexians, like birth control, are good for the institution of marriage. Goddamn, that might be our favorite premise of all.

Also, marriage gives us a reason to want to get out of bed every day, giving us hope in the dark and lonely universe, and there’s no reason why only heteros deserve that:

Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

And then, just to make Scalia feel really super sad in the empty chamber in his chest where his heart should be, there is this:

As this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. […] But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there.

Basically, if you have a constitutional right to do buttsex, you have a constitutional right to do MARRIED buttsex too. Sorry not sorry, Justice Scalia.

Won’t Someone Please Think Of The Children?

OK, this is our other favorite part:

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. […] By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”

Did you hear that? That is the sound of wingnut heads exploding across America. Isn’t it beautiful? But wait. There’s more:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Why do you want to HARM AND HUMILIATE children, bigots? Don’t you care about The Children?

Gay Marriage Is Downright American

The Court agrees with the bigots that marriage is, like, super important:

Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.

Because marriage is so important, the government has all kinds of for-marrieds-only rights and responsibilities, which are for marrieds only:

These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. […] Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law.

You see where this is going, right?

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.

In other words, if everyone agrees that marriage is that important, enough to justify a thousand provisions under federal law, it’s important for everyone. That includes The Gays.

All Your Other Objections Are Stupid Too

After spelling out the four basic premises of the Court’s decision, the opinion then smacks down all the other supposed reasons, all of which are bad, for banning marriage equality. Like the argument that marriage rights have never applied to gays and lesbians before, so they can’t now? Yeah, bullshit:

If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians.

And as for the so-called traditional biblical definitions (that are not all that traditional nor biblical)? Meh:

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

Plus, it’s dickish, unfair, and just plain rude:

It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.

And the “research” about how gay marriage will undermine the sanctity of straight marriage, and baby-making, and it will hurt all the straights in their married parts? And then that will end all the marriage forever? The “research” the Sixth Circuit repeatedly invoked, when it struck down gay marriage?


That is also bullshit:

The respondents also argue allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution by leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages. This may occur, the respondents contend, because licensing same-sex marriage severs the connection between natural procreation and marriage. That argument, however, rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couple’s decision making processes regarding marriage and parenthood. Decisions about whether to marry and raise children are based on many personal, romantic, and practical considerations; and it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so.

Seriously bullshit:

The respondents have not shown a foundation for the conclusion that allowing same-sex marriage will cause the harmful outcomes they describe. Indeed, with respect to this asserted basis for excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.

Shorter SCOTUS? Your “research” is bad, and you should feel bad.

Here’s Your Judicial Activism, Right In The Butt

So, you know how whiny critics have said that the Court has no right to decide whether to protect the minority from the bitgoted majority, only The People — through votes or through their state legislatures — get to do that? To paraphrase the Court, fuck those guys right in the ear:

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act.

Also too:

It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Since All The States Are Gay Now, ALL The States Are Gay Now

The secondary issue before the Court was whether states that banned gay marriage, like Tennessee, must still recognize the marriages of gay couples lawfully wedded in other states. Our aforementioned yr Gay Wonkette’s pals, DeKoe and Kostura, were legally married in New York, but when they moved to Tennessee, their new home state told them their marriage didn’t count. So they said, “Oh yeah? We’ll see you IN COURT!” And they did. And the Supreme Court says ALL the states must recognize that gay marriage is a constitutional right, and that includes you too, Tennessee:

The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.

So yeah. They — and all the other gay-married and lesbian-married couples in America are married — for real, in all the states now, because the Constitution says. Hooray!

thomijpe

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • arglebargle

    Are you sure it’s not the “anals of human history”?

  • Rocky

    Procreation? C’mon, the majority of us are merely amateurs at this creation stuff.

    • Logic of Color

      Eh, I prefer the amateur stuff anyway

  • whatwhomever

    I’m not gay married yet. I’m going to have to wait for gay marriage to destroy my straight marriage before I can proceed to gay marriage. It’s only a matter of time, according to the wingnuts. Unless, of course, Jeebus returns to destroy our gay country before the gay agenda can destroy my straight marriage then gay marry me.

  • cousin itt
    • OneYieldRegular

      Great. Worst. Pride parade. Float. EVER.

  • CalvinianChoice

    It’s obvious that Anthony Kennedy can construct a logical and thoughtful argument. I thought he was a Republican?

    I guess he’s being blackmailed like John Roberts was yesterday. Hey… whatever works.

    • OneYieldRegular

      Yesterday the wingnuts claim Roberts is being blackmailed, today he’s their hero. Come on, which one is it, people?

      • Blank Ron

        Dunno. What time is it?

    • Lascauxcaveman

      Kennedy likes to bust out his libertarian chops now and again when it suits his style; marriage equality is a very (small-L) libertarian issue. And since New Pope has said outright, “Stop obsessing about the gheys already,” Kennedy’s Catholic side can ride along with it.

  • Chick_Tract_Fil_A

    I wonder how the right-wing-o-sphere is taking all this. I imagine it’s going something like this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F2qyYeiu0E

  • Rocky

    Since Corporations are People too my friend, may I suggest Hobby Lobby now marry Subaru?

    • Left Coast Tom

      Speaking as a Subaru owner…no you may not suggest that!

      • tinywriting

        U R A BUS?

      • Rocky

        I was gonna suggest HL marry Chick-Fillet but that much bitterness is reserved for old-fashioned Pentecostal marriages!

    • Chick_Tract_Fil_A

      IKEA got jealous and left in a huff.

  • exinkwretch

    Short version: “Buttsechs is icky” is an extremely poor legal rationale.

    • mtn_philosoph

      Correct. Since the decision in Lawrence v. Texas held that the manner in which two consenting adults express their intimacy toward each other is none of the state’s business, then such private intimacies cannot be the state’s sole basis for deciding the legality of their relationship.

  • Spotts1701

    Robert’s dissent is basically a “screw you guys, I’m going home”, Scalia’s is frothing with rage and claiming the majority engaged in a “judicial Putsch”, and Thomas is too busy saying slavery and internment camps were really not so bad so the gays can suck it up too. Alito was really the only one who bought the ridiculous argument that marriage is solely about procreation, which means his dissent is really dull.

    • bobbert

      Roberts’ was “I’ma dissent on this to try to preserve some credibility among the RWNJ’s, and since it’s gonna go the other way anyhow, my dissent won’t leave a very noticeable mark on my historical legacy”.

  • Lex Luthor

    Grumpy Scalia: “Fundamental right? Whatever that means!”

    • whatwhomever

      he knows what a fundamental right is. It’s like the right of individual Americans to own as many guns as possible and to carry them with you in all circumstances, or the right of corporate-American citizens to donate as much money as they want to the superPAC of their choice.

  • SheriffRoscoe

    As Ginsburg told her pal Scalia in the anteroom, “So basically, The Bible? But The Bible says all kinds of wacked out shit.”

    • proudgrampa

      Well said, Sheriff!

    • mtn_philosoph

      “… to put it mildly.” If someone was to do things today exactly as they are depicted in the Bible he or she would be committing dozens of felonies.

      • Blank Ron

        But they’d be SINCERELY HELD felonies.

  • AntiDerpomeme

    Thank you Kaili, that was an excellent summary.

    • Antimassacree

      Agreed. Also, too, I suspect more than one of his colleagues would pay American dollars to see Scalia fucked in the ear.

  • Thomas Mc

    It is indeed a sad day for bigotry in America.

  • exinkwretch

    Also, may I now retroactively blame my two divorces on gay marriage? Because that seems to be the obvious culprit, not the fact that I’m shitty at selecting partners.

    • Logic of Color

      No need. Since they were straight marriages they were just fine, thank you.

  • onedrewthree

    I smile and cringe when I think about the inevitable future comment by a neophyte homo “I can’t imagine what it was like before gay marriage was legalized. That must have been CRAZY.” Is this a gray hair I’m finding? I think I’m dying. Future gays, it was very crazy.

    • Lizzietish81

      I already get that with kids trying to understand the Cold War.

      • CalvinianChoice

        I’m an old and I don’t understand the cold war.

        • Zippy

          FEAR

          same as it ever was…

        • jmk

          I’ve never understood it… markets? Dominos? Who the fuck knows.

          • malsperanza

            Something something the Ottoman Empire, Great Game, Balkans, Bulgaria. And then the Stalin Show Trials, and Churchill in Missouri banging his shoe on the kitchen table.

        • Rocky

          Whatever the Cold War was, as I have been told for decades, our Savior Ronald Reagan blasted it with laserbeams and jesusjuice so we are all warm now…

      • Chick_Tract_Fil_A

        I’ve lived through the Cold War and the only good thing I got out of it was a really cool Peter Sellers movie.

        • malsperanza

          “The Russians Are Coming” alsotoo.

      • r m reddicks

        The old one? Or this new-fangled one?

      • Relativicus

        I’m just happy to know they want to know about it.

      • mtn_philosoph

        The Cold War was the final phase of the conflict that was ignited on July 28, 1914.

        • Blank Ron

          I heard that, about the Cold War ending. Who won?

          • mtn_philosoph

            “The long years we spent plunged in the Cold War made losers of us all.”
            ~ Mikhail Gorbachev

          • Blank Ron

            Gorby really called it, didn’t he?

  • Slithytoves

    “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.”

    Okay, that was not necessary; it just makes me feel lonely and hopeless. *Sniff.*

    • arglebargle

      Loneliness I understand, but don’t ever give up hope. My college sweetie tracked me down 32 years after we broke up and we got hitched 16 months ago. Best thing that ever happened to me. I’m still a cynical old fart, just a happy cynical old fart now.

    • r m reddicks

      There’s always Life Alert.

    • Amy!

      Also, while that’s prolly good law and stuff, it’s kind of a bad basis for a marriage, as I understand it. It’s an argument in favor of a roommate, more or less.

      • Whale Chowder

        Or a dog.

        • Blank Ron

          But NOT a cat.

  • Latverian Diplomat

    If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning ofJohn Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie

    Hey, Nino. The phrase “to secure the blessings of liberty” is right there in the preamble. I know you usually skip that part in your hurry to get to the 10th Ammendment, but it’s right there. What the fuck do you think “the blessings of liberty” are?

    • r m reddicks

      To be fair I think he meant mystical aphorisms of applesauce.

      • Msgr_Moment

        You guys all misheard him. Applause!

  • dslindc

    “Shorter SCOTUS? Your “research” is bad, and you should feel bad.”

    THIS. ALL OF THIS.

  • Walter Wellstone

    I propose the word “gaymarriaged” to describe this new stage of civilization we have just ascended to (plus it has a nice ring to it that I’m sure will piss off the wingnuts–and I’m all for that). Some of us are gay-married, some of us are not but we’re all gaymarriaged nevertheless.

    • bobbert

      Anthropoanthropocene?

  • Paperless Tiger

    The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

    Seems more apropos of “corporate personhood,” eh Tony?

  • OneYieldRegular

    Bravo, a primer that should be distributed on every street corner. I am impressed by Kennedy’s “evolution” on this issue and the clarity of his arguments.

    I am, of course, not surprised by Scalia’s frothing-at-the-mouth dissent, but I am dumbfounded by his utter lack of respect for his fellow justices. Whatever his belief in his own arguments, his dismissal of the majority argument is one of the most unprofessional things I’ve ever read. If he were my employee and pulled that kind of thing with regard to other employees, I’d fire him in a heartbeat.

    But I am utterly dismayed by Robert’s dissent, which is breathtaking in its grubbing pettiness. He actually says that sex among unmarried straight couples should never occur outside of marriage! That’s a Taliban-level degree of conservatism.

    • malsperanza

      I was wondering about that too. It seems unusual for dissents to get so vulgar in tone – don’t the Brethren and Sistren usually maintain a frosty decorum? I will have to spend some time this weekend noodling around on SCOTUS blogs.

      • Amy!

        Four separate dissents. These guys couldn’t agree on anything, except “Ewwwwwwwww, gross!”

        • malsperanza

          Well Scalia did sign all the other dissents too. But I think they all wanted to be sure they would be counted individually when the time comes to inscribe their names on the Great Ash Heap of History.

    • bobbert

      Roberts HAD to dissent, after yesterday. My impression was that he just threw some shit together, so he wouldn’t have to join Fat Tony’s dissent.

  • AntiDerpomeme
    • arglebargle

      Whoa. It’s like sister Sarah projectile vomit after a dictionary entree and thesaurus dessert.

    • jmk

      Ooooh! I got ”
      The nearest hippie is a somersault of statutory interpretation.”

      I love that!!

    • marxalot

      I got “The obfuscator of last resort taxes the credulity of the credulous,” which I think wins me a free spin on the prize wheel.

  • AnOuthouse

    Well that took the wind out of the gay day sails. I thought now everyday was going to be the Castro Street Fair and instead its all ‘dignity,’stable relationships’ , ‘community’, and ‘children’ .

    • Randy Riddle

      I’m disappointed the ruling made absolutely no mention of ass chaps, poppers and nipple clamps.

  • Jan Ness

    States should embrace this! Think of all the moneez states will make by issuing all those licenses…taxes on cakes, flowers, and other wedding stuff.

    • Amy!

      Pizza?

  • DemmeFatale

    Today, (at least for awhile), I am not mad about a thing.

  • Chick_Tract_Fil_A

    Perhaps Bristol can abstain the ruling?

    • arglebargle

      ab-stain has a different meaning where Bristol is concerned.

      • natoslug

        She wouldn’t have ended up pregnant if she’d gone for the ab-stain for the money shot.

    • Wild Cat

      What ever happened to Bristol’s aspirin?

      • Bob@Bob.com

        She lost it bumping uglies with her cousin

      • Celtic_Gnome

        It was dislodged from between her knees when she was dragged across the lawn at the Thrilla in Wasilla.

  • Dudleydidwrong

    Nothing is so strong as an idea whose time has cum.

  • House0fTheBlueLights

    Next Wonksplainer: how does this effect all the denial of marriage acts on the books in the various states? Seriously, what’s the process?

    • HobbesEvilTwin

      They are now footnotes.

    • Spotts1701

      Much like the sodomy laws that are still on the books, they are simply null and void. There does not have to be a process to formally strike them from the statutes of the various states. States may rescind the various DOMA’s if they choose to do so.

    • bobbert

      They’re void. In some states, they’ll probably remain on the books (without formal repeal) for decade, but they have no legal force. We can probably expect a couple of years of assholes and lawsuits until the point gets firmly driven home (so to speak).

  • Wild Cat

    O puhleze! This is all a conspiracy by SCROTUM to increase the hits on Breitbart’s website for the mentally deranged.

  • Steverino247

    If Justice Kennedy can’t get laid today, there is no justice.

    • arglebargle

      no justice, no piece

      • Logic of Color

        Know piece, Know justice

        • arglebargle

          Touche. Or touchy, I can never keep those straight, so to speak.

          • chicken thief

            The arc of justice is never straight? Rarely straight? I dunno… somehow it seems to fit in there…

            Wait, “seems to fit in there” also too appropo – I’m just spewing these out like…

            Wait, “spewing” also too also too…

            Ok. Nuff. Anyone heard from mah main man Louie Gohmert yet?

          • Celtic_Gnome

            Yes. We’re all going to die.

          • Amy!

            With un-aspersed asparagus, or without?

    • bobbert

      By anybody he wants.

  • natoslug

    I’ve got a box full of plastic bags, if Scalia doesn’t have his own bag handy. I could probably find some duct tape, if he wants a tighter seal for his sticking. Borrow as many as you want, you hateful fuck.

    • jmk

      I can offer him a wide selection of attractive plastic bags from grocery stores, home-decor shops, video-game emporia, and convenience stores.

      Nino, if you’re reading this, may I suggest the Pier One – it’s a lovely bag made of sturdy, shiny white plastic with an attractively understated logo…but most importantly, it’s gigantic enough to fit over your outsized head and ego.

    • Celtic_Gnome

      United Dairy Farmers bags are the bags of choice. They have a Holstein design like Gateway, and the stores won’t sell condoms. As far as Justice Scalia is concerned, it’s a match made in heaven.

  • Dave

    The Diary of a Straight (more or less) Man at the End of Days

    June 26, 2015

    10:02 AM: The activist judges of the Obama Supreme Court defy the Word and allow the sodomites to force me to marry them.

    10:20 AM: I make a sandwich to prepare for the coming battle.

    11:45 AM: I hear the black helicopters in the distance. They seem to be working west to east, gay marrying everyone as they go.

    12:10 PM: I am holed up in the basement with my guns. The sound of gay marriage is clearly audible to me now. It is a very gay sound. It hurts my straight brain. I can feel my rights being snatched away one by one. They will never gay marry me alive!

    1:05 PM: They seem to have missed me! Their gay radar has failed to penetrate my hole! The hole I am hiding in, I mean. In the basement. Perverts!

    1:50 PM: I just crawled out to see how the outside world looked. It looks exactly the same. Nothing seems to have changed. I will crawl back to my hole however. Judgement is surely coming.

    1:55 PM: Shit! I shouldn’t have gone outside. They left gay monitors behind in the trees. All is lost…..

    2:01 PM: You will probably not hear from me again. They have broken my will to resist, what with their talk of ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ and such. Damn you gays!!!!!!!

    • LIT_Fag

      1:05pm: made me spew beer out of my mouth.
      1:55pm: gay monitors in the trees? Must be fruit trees.

    • malsperanza

      You’ve seen this, yes?

      • Dave

        Ha! No. I had missed that one. It’s definitely the feel I was going for. Thanks!

      • Dave

        Ha! No I had not seen that. It is the same feeling I was trying to convey. Thanks!

  • Treg Brown

    So when I’m forced (forced, hahaha) to get gay married, do I have a say in who it is, or does someone just show up at my door and propose? Cuz it’d be nice if they were taller than me. And could cook.

    • Reddishrabbit

      I think the FEMA camps have speed dating night.

    • TheBidenator

      Join the Moonies…they mass marry whoever happens to be in the cult at a given time.

    • Relativicus

      Nope. First dude you see wearing short short cut-offs and a rainbow muscle shirt is the guy you have to marry. Read the Constitution!

  • Dear Big Tony,

    “I may not agree with people who wish to hide their head in a bag, but I will defend with my life their right to do so.”

    Yr humble opponent,

    RnW

  • Callyson

  • Reddishrabbit

    Kennedy is the man of the week in my mind. I may disagree on things he has sided with (Citizen’s VRA for example), but he has been pretty solid on this and housing/ACA yesterday.

  • MrBlobfish

    In an act of revenge, Fox News has dumped “The Five” co-host Bob Beckel.

    • arglebargle

      Noooo, not the liberal one! First Colmes, now Beckel. Where-oh-where will I find a voice of reason on the “fair and balanced” network now?

      • MrBlobfish

        Those little voices in your head should be able to provide the same sort of insight.

      • Celtic_Gnome

        And, being Fox News, they really went out of their way to fuck him over. When Politico reported that the split was amicable, Fox released a statement to correct that, basically saying that Beckel was a fucking asshole who abused their good will, and Fox should get a medal for putting up with his bullshit for so long.

    • LIT_Fag

      I was out cleaning the pool when the decision came out (so to speak). My Republican aunt texted me to say congrats and she applauded their decision. I told her i turned over to Fox and was highly disappointed that they werent screaming and crying about it.

      • Celtic_Gnome

        Cleaning the pool? Is that what the kids are calling it now?

  • Metadude

    TL/DR. Shorter Kaili Joy: We’re all FABULOUS now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • FauxAntocles

    :)

  • chicken thief

    I tried to read all that, but it just makes my head hurt. Won’t someone, anyone, just fuck me already?!

    ~ Brizdull

    • bobbert

      Isn’t this some kind of tautology?

  • docterry6973

    LGBT people have shared their love and lives together for as long as there have been humans. They’ve had to live under various levels of acceptance or persecution, but they did what they had to do to live their lives together.

    One of my great-great-…-great aunts lived her entire adult life, in the 19th century, with another woman. They are buried next to each other in their churchyard; my churchyard. As it was told to me, they had ‘an understanding’. Think of how much happiness they were denied.

    I am so happy today when so many people have a chance at the happiness that was denied to my long-dead relative. As others have said, this is happiness that harms no one, and enriches us all.

    • I think back then that was called a “Boston marriage”.

      • marxalot

        cf also “romantic friendship” and “confirmed bachelor”

    • Relativicus

      But what about Christianity?!?

      • bobbert

        I think it might be a good idea.

        • Blank Ron

          Me too. We should try it some time.

  • proudgrampa

    Wow. Kaili, thank you for the Wonksplain. That was very clear and concise. I can’t wait to quote the excerpts of your majority quote excerpts to my head-splodin’ friends and colleagues! You are a sweetie. Cheers!

  • Last Hussar

    Welcome to the Club. Funny how the Right talks about the Judeo-Christian God in marriage, ignoring all cultures have had marriage , meaning its not just theirs.

    I’m trying to get up the courage to go and see what Freepers are saying!

    • freakishlystrong

      Leave a trail of kittens in case we have to come get you out.

  • freakishlystrong

    Excellent ‘splain. Now please, can someone Wonksplain to me why these small govenment fuckers give such a shit about whom is married to who? Go out, have a few drinks, have great dinner, go on a Ferris wheel, kiss a girl, wingnuts, you’ll be okay. Jesus cross dressing Christ, the fucking drama.

    • Logic of Color

      They’re not happy unless we all Jesus the same way

      • freakishlystrong

        They’re not happy. Nor Gay!

    • marxalot

      I’ll take the drinks, the dinner, and the girl, but you can’t convince me those Ferris wheel things are a good idea.

      • freakishlystrong

        Agreed, going forward fucks me up. Gay-Go-Round?

    • Mintie

      Because it’s not fair that people who are not afraid of burning in hell for all eternity can get married and be happy, whereas they have to be stuck with someone who makes them miserable.

    • Because that’s one of the things their racist Neo-Confederate base demands of them.

  • Anarchy Pony

    I don’t envy Dok having to assemble the deleted comments thread this week.

  • mtiffany

    ‘Shorter SCOTUS? Your “research” is bad, and you should feel bad.’

    Did you just paraphrase Dr. Zoidberg?

    • “And may God have mercy on your soul.”

  • bluicebank

    I’d like to add an explanation to Chief Justice Roberts’ pissy, passive-aggressive dissent, in which he said (yes, he spaketh it):

    “If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation
    — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s
    decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the
    opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate
    the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution.
    It had nothing to do with it.”

    Translation: “Sure, have a good time. Date. While your mother slowly dies inside.”

    • malsperanza

      And that line is being quoted all over Wingnutville as proof that the law is unconstitutional. Or that the Supreme Court doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution. Or something. Thanks, Justice Roberts! You just confused the fuck out of a lot of people who were very confused already.

      I can’t wait for the legal eagles at Fox to explain that the majority opinion doesn’t count, presumably by citing the Articles of Confederation, or Betty Crocker’s recipe for pineapple upside-down cake, or a random string of numbers from the ENIGMA Numbers Station, or Arod’s batting average.

  • SprayedMilkOutMyNose

    What the FUCK is GOING ON HERE!!!? We’ve had gay marriage for, god, a solid couple of hours now, and I STILL don’t have a dick in my rectum!!! God-FUCKING-dammit!!! I was PROMISED!!!

    Very disappointed…

    • marxalot

      Did you remember to fill out your roommate gay spouse preferences form? Because if you don’t get that turned in, you’re going to be pretty far down in the queue.

    • VandeGraf

      Yeah, I just got back from a long bus ride. We passed half a dozen urban parks and I didn’t see a single gay couple copulating on the grass! What is the world coming to?!

      • Amy!

        You misspelled “coming in twos.”

  • Come here a minute

    Holy crap, I forgot this part from the Bonkers and Yip-Yap story:

    It was a 23-hour engagement. They notified family, filled out the
    paperwork and had a $71 wedding, which included the cost of the marriage
    license, a pizza and a bottle of prosecco.

    The ridiculous thing about the anti-gay-wedding pizza place was supposed to be that the gays would never celebrate their wedding with a pizza, and then you had to go and ruin it!

    • proudgrampa

      Jeez. That story makes me wish my daughter had lesbian-married. Would have saved me $24,929!

      • Amy!

        Well, but Bonkers and Yip-Yap were boys. If it was us girls, you gotta add in the cost of shooos. But you’d still save an easy $20K. Fifteen, minimum.

        • H0mer0

          with the matching purse and belt, and maybe a complementary set of jewelry…

  • VandeGraf

    For the record, it is my sincere religious belief that Hobby Lobby sells cheap, substandard goods often created by underpaid, abused sweatshop workers in Third World countries. It’s a sort of grift that Jesus would have appreciated, him selling cut rate spirituality the way he did.

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      With ya until that last part. Jesus didn’t sell cut rate spirituality. That bit of stupid came much later, much to the world’s unending sorrow

      • malsperanza

        50 years later, with my main man St. Paul.

      • VandeGraf

        You are right. I stand corrected. My muscle memory rage got the better of me.

  • Incoming Ham

    Has anyone else seen this video? The woman from the Heritage Foundation is downright frightening. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33291374

    • Marc

      The heritage foundation members ought to actually read the the U.S. Constitution. It has worked exactly as intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority (and I mean the Christianist loud mouths) from expressing itself upon the LBGT community.

      It seems the dissenting members of the court don’t really understand the Constitution either.

      Plus that lady looks batshit crazy.

  • Relativicus

    This has probably already been announced — after all, it’s been, what, four hours? — but who will be the first jackass to propose legislation, statewide or federally, banning government-sanctioned marriage benefits (possibly also Tue marriage itself)?

    • MrBlobfish

      Your Confederate States of America are lining up already.

      • bluicebank

        Texas went there.

  • Joshua Norton

    Scalia calls SCOTUS ruling “pretentious.”

    Apparently, he sees marriage equality the same way I see “True Detective” season 2.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Cripes, that asshole projects like the multiplex down at the mall over Memorial Day weekend.

  • Ilgattomorte

    First off Kaili, you did a great job taking a complex subject and making it easy to digest. It’s a great piece of writing.

    That being said, I’m not ready for gay marriage. My “wife”, and I have been shacking up for around 19 years so I really haven’t done marriage in a while. But hell, I’m a good American and if the courts say I have have to do it, then I have to do it. The problem is, most every one in my circle is attached in some way. I mean there’s my buddy, Fat Lou or maybe Willie the fish guy, but I’ve got to say these are not attractive options and the pickings don’t look so good for Ms. Morte either.

    That’s why I think we need Congress to develop a program to ease us in to the whole gay thing, kind of like a cross between Obamacare and Grindr. There’s a lot of straight people out there that need help during this time of transition. It could be called the Affable Gay Act, a program to help terminally straight people find a friend to hook up with. Of course, those damn Republicans will probably end up calling it Homobamacare or something stupid like that.

    All joking aside, Ms Morte and I were talking today and we thought if so many people fought so hard, for so long, for the right to marry, what the hell are we doing? We’ve been in love for a long time, have a couple of kids and yet we never married. We always had the right, but never took advantage of it. Stupid! We’ll be getting married in a couple of months. So, I guess, thank you LGBT community for helping us get off our lazy asses.

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      Holy crap, gay marriage is inspiring hetero people to get married themselves? Won’t someone think of the poor wingnuts????

      Also, congrats ^.^

      • Ilgattomorte

        Thanks Jen. For years we’ve displayed our relationship as a badge of courage. As if to say, “Look at how cool we are. We don’t need a piece of paper maaaan”. But we are stupid! People have literally died for the right to do what we so cavalierly ignored. After 19 years we’re committed, there’s no reason not to make it legal. So, I don’t know if we were inspired as much as being made to feel small by the magnitude of a victory after a really long struggle.

    • malsperanza

      “…a cross between Obamacare and Grindr”

      By gum, I think you’re onto something there. You better patent that, stat.

    • this!!!

      this is me and mr. fuflans!!

  • Villago Delenda Est

    Nicely sketched out, Kaili. You do good work.

    Too bad the wingtards don’t have the collective brainpower of a thistle to comprehend it.

  • spends2much

    Speaking from a country that has had marriage equality for 10 years, welcome to the party!
    Secondly.. is it wrong that like half of my enjoyment of this moment is that Scalia is so beside himself?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      No, it’s not. I can feel his pain, and it enriches me and delights me.

      The vile sack of fascist shit is suffering, and I could not be happier.

  • Joshua Norton

    I get the distinct impression that almost all of Justice Scalia’s judicial opinions are delivered with him angrily swearing under his breath.

    • sw19womble

      Judging by the word salad, I got the impression that he was experiencing a cluster of mini-strokes this time round.

      • Beaumarchais?

        Good thing they approved Obamacare yesterday, then.

  • Fabulous Wonksplainer as always, Kaili Joy – thank you!

  • Googiecat

    Ya, that was great. Comparison to Hobby Lobby particularly interesting.

  • malsperanza

    I spent half the afternoon quoting Articles III and IV and the 14th Amendment to nitwits who kept telling me that the law was “unconstitutional” and that the Supreme Court isn’t supposed to write laws. I can’t think of a better way to fuck off on a Friday.

    Alsotoo: OH MY GOD AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA HOW OUR GOVERMINT WORKS. NOT THE FAINTEST FUCKING IDEA. NOT ONE GODDAM CLUE. DON’T THEY TEACH ANYTHING AT ALL IN GRADE SCHOOL? WE ARE FUCKING DOOMED.

  • malsperanza

    “That argument, however, rests on a
    counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couple’s decision making processes
    regarding marriage and parenthood. Decisions about whether to marry and
    raise children are based on many personal, romantic, and practical
    considerations.”

    Kaili, it’s a shame to leave out the excellent citation of case law that goes with this:

    See Bristol, 545 U.S. 203, 421-32, where the court found that such decisions are legal even when no actual rational thought can be detected.

  • bobbert

    I’m pretty late to this particular post, because my younger spawn suddenly showed up here this afternoon, and rescheduling occurred. HOWEVER, let me just remark that I had pretty well written Tony K. off as having descended too far into old-person-get-off-my-lawn, but this opinion is not only correct (IMO, of course), but a pretty goddam fine piece of both legal and rhetorical writing.

    It makes the other (Fat) Tony’s argle-bargle dissent look like applesauce.

    • mtn_philosoph

      Well-said. I too was struck by the eloquence and clear reasoning of Kennedy’s opinion, at least as quoted in this summary. It might be his finest piece of writing as a Justice.

  • Nick.Trite

    I love that Scalia started his dissent by saying how little of a stake he has in the case. It was basically a judicial “no homo.”

  • essbird

    Justice RGB: Is she on old-school CTR monitor?

  • WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! :-) :-) :-)

Previous articleObama Hearts Gay Marriage, Hates God
Next articleHow GOP ‘Presidents’ Will Fail To Save America From Buttsex-Based Marriage