SHARE

It's the end of the world! Except not

It turns out that not every single U.S. American is sexcitedly happy dancing because the Supreme Court confirmed that, per the Constitution, the Constitution is for everybody. Like, some of the justices on the Supreme Court (but not enough of them to matter, HAHAHAHA). Join us, as we read their word-weeping for their beloved institution of inequality, which is dead as fried chicken now, huzzah!

John Roberts Chooses Wrong Side Of History After All

We knew the Supreme Court was going to LITERALLY HOLOCAUST all the homo-haters to death, with their opinion, but we are a little surprised that Chief Justice Roberts decided to sit at the losers’ table, not because he loves him some gays, but because he loves him some legacy, and likes to imagine how history books will one day remember him fondly. Maybe it’s his way of trying to kiss and make up (but not in a gay way) with conservatives who are OUTRAGED! that he allowed himself to be blackmailed into upholding Obamacare, for the second time. Guess that goat-fucking video of him wasn’t quite explicit enough.

Roberts agrees with anti-gay conservatives that “unelected judges” (drink!) do not have the authority to determine whether a law is constitutional:

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

That’s hilarious, considering it was only a year ago that Roberts thought it was just fine for the Supreme Court to decide the law does not apply to the owners of closely held corporations who say they “sincerely believe” the law is wrong. (Yes, we are still Mad About That Thing.)

But that was then, and this is now, and in this instance, Chief Roberts? He don’t give a damn how sincere anyone’s feelings or beliefs are:

As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.

See, what matters now is that the Court has STOLED the right to define marriage, from the people, UNFAIR!

Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

During oral argument, Roberts had warned that if his colleagues throat-crammed him and his fellow anti-gay conservatives, well, that would just make them even MORE anti-gay:

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.

He might have been willing to be cool with the gay marriage, if everyone had just slowed down and allowed bigots to come around eventually, but now that they have been forced to live in a country where dudes can marry other dudes, and it’s not even a crime, he is not going to be cool with it, and you can’t make him!

But please note that this is definitely not about whether Roberts likes The Gays, OK? It’s just that, being a simple caveman Supreme Court chief justice, his hands are tied:

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.

Also, despite the history lesson from the majority about how marriage has NOT always been defined as the bigots would have you believe, Roberts figures that since the Aztecs didn’t legalize gay marriage, we shouldn’t either:

As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Yes, we should definitely model our laws on the ancient Aztecs. Good call!

Roberts recites, at length, all of the “history” and “studies” finding that marriage has always been one man and one woman loving each other SOOOOOOO much, and that love creates a baby, and then they provide a stable No Homo home for the baby, like the Bible says. Except that’s not true, and it’s never been true, and that’s not what the Bible says, but hey, you do you, Chief. You ram those fingers in those ears and sing “LALALALA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” loud as you want.

Then, sweet Jesus, he quotes the 1828 Webster dictionary for the definition of “marriage,” which is just sad and pathetic, and a super piss-poor argument for maintaining an unequal system whereby you may or may not have rights depending on what kind of sex holes you’re into.

Roberts does concede that the majority has a point, and that all of his prior and subsequent points about the “traditional” definition of marriage are wrong and moot:

As the majority notes, some aspects of marriage have changed over time. Arranged marriages have largely given way to pairings based on romantic love. States have replaced coverture, the doctrine by which a married man and woman became a single legal entity, with laws that respect each participant’s separate status. Racial restrictions on marriage, which “arose as an incident to slavery” to promote “White Supremacy,” were repealed by many States and ultimately struck down by this Court.

But YOLO, apparently, so Roberts figures the 1828 definition is still more or less true, and therefore, “traditional marriage” blah blah.

Roberts is also quite certain that bans on gay marriage aren’t hurting anyone anyway:

Same-sex couples remain free to live together,to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one.

And so long as you ignore the thousand federal benefits from which gay couples are excluded, not to mention that it’s just plain dickish and mean and un-American to deny rights to people because they make you all “ewwww” and “ick,” yeah, no one is hurt at all. Except, as the majority pointed out, the children of gay couples. And the institution of marriage itself. But other than that …

Roberts repeats himself, REPEATEDLY, with all of his sobbing about history and tradition and how mean and arrogant it is of the majority to piss on America and “thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet,” the way it does. Also, our founders would be sad too. And democracy. Democracy is dead:

By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.

Roberts is also, as always, very concerned about how the the religious folk will no longer be protected from having to bake gay penis cakes, because they SINCERELY BELIEVE Jesus wouldn’t like it:

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.
The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. […] The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion.

And how are the Bible-humpers supposed to “exercise” their religion if they are forced by unelected judges to live among lawfully wedded gay couples, HUH? Somewhere, Jesus is sobbing. But at least those religious types can still tell their employees “no birth control for you, ya whore.” That should offer some comfort.

Roberts drops the mic with this:

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. I respectfully dissent.

Translation? Screw you, The Gays and your stupid “rights,” you fucked up my country and my Constitution, HOPE YOU’RE HAPPY NOW.

Pretty sure they are, Chief.

Justice Scalia Still Hates Buttsex

Are you at all surprised that the Supreme Court justice who once predicted, in Lawrence v. Texas, that decriminalizing sodomy would be the end of America as we know it, is real mad? Of course not. While he agrees with everything Roberts said, he just needs to add a few things:

I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

At least he’s not being hyperbolic. He’s also quite sure this matter was decided after the Civil War, so he really resents being forced to even waste his time on all this argle bargle:

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.

Scalia is the same justice who has also said the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to chicks either. And the Court cannot simply decide that “women” or “gays” or “lesbians” are “persons,” because that is not what the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant at the same. At least Scalia, who is quite certain nothing is ever supposed to change, EVER, is ideologically consistent. Except for the part where he insists, like Roberts, that justices on the Supreme Court have no authority, even though we are fairly certain we remember him making decisions, at some point? Maybe we’re confused:

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

And then, after railing even harder about what the Fourteenth Amendment meant a hundred years ago, he just goes full Scalia and starts insulting everybody:

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.

See, HE is allowed to be an arrogant pretentious a-hole, but only when he’s in the minority. Not, like, when it actually matters.

With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

TMI, Scalia! Also, there’s a little blue pill for that.

Surprise! Clarence Thomas Has Some ‘Thoughts’ Too!

Of course Clarence Thomas agrees with everything his conservative buddies said, but he also wants to be on the record as being super sad.

Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a“liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

Besides, like his fellow conservatives said, no one is hurting the gays, they are FINE:

Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace.

It’s just that nobody should have to give The Gays special privileges that all the non-gays enjoy because they are NOT special, or even entitled to be treated like their fellow Americans:

Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized.

Straight benefits are for straights only, duh. If the founders had wanted gays to have “liberty,” they woulda said so. And now everyone’s liberty is gone:

The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.

Wait a minute — does anyone even care what Thomas thinks? No? OK, moving on.

Samuel Alito: What They Said

It’s not clear why Justice Alito felt the need to chime in as well, since the other dissenting justices already made all the points for him. Unelected judges, boo hoo, democracy, liberty, tradition. Oh, and now people will use equality as a weapon to be mean to bigots. BOO. HOO:

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. […] The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

TL;DNR

In case you are new to this law thing, the dissents have no effect whatsoever, although we expect the justices who raged against unelected judges making decisions to resign any second now, because if they have no authority anyway, what’s the point?

All that matters is that a majority of the justices ruled that the Constitution does not permit states to discriminate against gays and lesbians. All of the dissenting opinions are just a lot of words and crying and self-pity. Enjoy them.

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Chris Meeks

    Taste the rainbow….

    • eddi

      The tears are sweeter.

  • Lascauxcaveman

    Roberts is maybe kinda sorta closeted, so this vote is maybe kinda sorta staving off his outing.

    That’s the only way I can think of him choosing to sit at the losers table. And you’re right, in posterity, he appear to be absurdly old-fashioned on this subject.

    • eddi

      The Reb’s best friend in the Supremes old-fashioned? Shock and awe! He only supported Obamacare because the Rebs would have gone down in flames in 2016 otherwise.

  • CriticalDragon1177

    If only the ruling had been unanimous, than it would have been even more devistating to the GOP homophobes!

    • HSkol

      Now that we are all required by law to get gay married and such, I’m hoping that you can find Sophia Vergara’s phone number for my wife and Bruce Willis’ phone number for me. Do you have that info? Oh, and I think Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins would be a super cute couple – uptight yes, cute nonetheless. What do you think? ;)

      • Riley Whodat Venable

        Remember, you are now forced to buy insurancce for all these Gay Spouses.

        • HSkol

          Crap! We have to maintain our health too? Crap!

  • Left Coast Tom

    Scalia, of all people:

    I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

    So does this mean he’s denouncing his own decision in Bush v Gore?

    • Reddishrabbit

      Our Citizen’s Untied?

      • Anarchy Pony

        Damn, I should pay more attention.

        • Reddishrabbit

          Great minds think alike.
          Or so I tell myself…

    • H0mer0

      oh, pleez, oh pleez!

    • Anarchy Pony

      Or citizen’s united?

  • Spotts1701

    If you really feel that way, fellas, don’t bother showing up on Monday. I’m sure you can go find some work somewhere that has power or authority.

  • Callyson

    As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

    I’ll take “people who take charge of their own destiny” for $500, Alex.

    Also, too, regarding the overall butt-hurt expressed by the wingnuts here:

  • eddi

    All I hear quoted in this article is the Charlie Brown “wah, wah, wah.”

  • JohnnyZhivago2

    I honestly think there ARE people who believe it is now mandatory!

    PS. Congratulations to my Wonkette friends who have looked forward to this day!!!

    What a week!!! Next thing you know we’ll be giving away the Panama Canal.

  • ““neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

    What the everloving fuck does this even mean? A law comes before the SC, they judge the law to be constitutional/non-constitutional and then the following or not following the law ensues. Is this not LAW and not merely recommendations?

    • Vecciojohn

      The phrase “armed judgment” recurs time from happy college days of yore.

      • bobbert

        Did this involve baby blue helmets?

    • eddi

      The court decides if a law is in line with the Constitution. It is up to the Legislative branch to ensure, by further laws and the Executive, by Constitutional action that their decision is carried out.

  • Vecciojohn

    Boys, your words are music to our ears. They ought to be put to song.

  • JohnnyZhivago2

    Hey ShyPixel, I know you’re changing diapers, etc – but something keeps forcing the screen to jump to the top of the page here – at least on Firefox ….

    • Ryan Denniston

      Reload the page, I get the same thing at times. I think it’s the video inserts.

    • Blank Ron

      Happens in Safari too, from time to time. It would make replying to comments more difficult, if commenting were possible.

  • This line of Alito’s is especially, um…special:

    I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

    Please, God, won’t someone think of the bigots?!

    (Kaili Joy, if you’re not invited to Wonksplain your whipsmart, telegenic self on a nightly cable news program or three, than there actually is no justice in the world.)

    • H0mer0

      pics or GTFO!

      • Thank goodness that you added that clarification – I almost posted a photo of Alito in a Speedo!

        (I’m not sure that it’s my place to plaster her picture in the comments, but if you want to witness her whipsmart-ness in action, she is in the YouTubes.)

        • H0mer0

          Alito may not look that bad in a speedo, Now Nino, that would not be a sight to behold (although I try not to fat shame.)

        • H0mer0

          right you are! (about Kaili)

    • Vecciojohn

      Stay away from Morning Joe. Rumor is Mika is going to be taken out back and shot before long.

      • I sure hope that the studio has good mics, because from then on out the whole show will have to be whispered.

      • bobbert

        You don’t thing Zbig has that covered?

    • OneYieldRegular

      “the recesses of their homes”? He’s talking about the closet, right?

      • April

        He seems to forget what Jesus said in Matthew 6:5-6

        “5 And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

        In other words go back into the closet (the straight kind).

    • mailman27

      You can cling to all kinds of retrograde beliefs all day long, and you can sing them to the high heavens. You cannot, however, enforce those “views” by means of “governments, employers, and schools.” That’s kinda the whole point. Jesus Horatio Hornblower Christ, this guy’s a Supreme Court justice?

    • bobbert

      Jesus, these fuckers are all just venting.

      Apparently, one of the joys of old age is seeing the Supreme Court of the United States turn into a middle school. Still beats being dead, I suppose.

  • eddi

    OK now let’s sit back and watch as the Constitution-kissing Rebs shred said document to get rid of the Supreme Court.

  • Vecciojohn

    It is said that no one now knows what the rebel yell sounded like. May we live to see the day when no one remembers this kind of shit. Go home and get your god damned motherfucking shine boxes, boys. And cheer up, chaps, I hear there’s fillet of poor on for tonight at the club.

    • ahughes798

      I would like to hear it once. Just so I know what to listen for. I believe in Ken Burn’s “Civil War” series, there is some old sound film of some old confederate soldiers doing the Rebel Yell. But they were real old fellers by then.

    • Blank Ron
  • cousin itt

    But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized.

    Clarence, you know who else the Framers would not have recognized as having anything at all? YOU, YOU POMPOUS ASSHOLE.

    • richardgrabman

      Clarence had 3/5th the dignity.

    • Seek

      Or his marriage. One presumes he lives somewhere near the state of Virginia and may have heard of this snazzy little 14th Amendment case called Loving or Lovely or some such which just might have some bearing on this …

      Dumbass

  • Strepsi

    So wait .. he actually says in the same argument that the “sincerity” of the gay couple is “irrelevant”, but it would be wrong to offend someone’s religious beliefs because they are “sincerely held”. SO LAME.

    • Vecciojohn

      Oh yeah? Well, if you’re so smart, what about the NO HOMO doctrine of your face vs my ass, huh? Pussy!

      Your brother in Christ,

      • ahughes798

        Tee hee.

  • Reddishrabbit

    So, they would overturned Loving? Pretty sure a lot of states didn’t allow that type of marriage in the late 1800’s.

    • SK

      Maybe Thomas is sick of his tea-bagging wife, and this would be a novel way to dissolve their marriage.

      • Reddishrabbit

        Can’t blame him…

        • bobbert

          Well, yeah.

        • Billy Rubin

          He’s no prize, either.

          • Blank Ron

            They deserve each other.

  • memzilla

    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.

    Yeah… like a FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, one with ACTUAL FUCKING VOTES.

  • cousin itt

    Dear John, the Aztecs understood human rights and dignity about as well as you do. They also made a really shitty crossover SUV.

    • RoyalUglyDude

      Walter White respectfully dissents.

    • richardgrabman

      The “Aztecs” had some pretty good laws… one percenters who stole or took bribes were tortured and executed, whereas ordinary people were just fined. And, I’ve never seen anything in “Aztec” history that suggests a particular objection to same-sex marriage. To same-sex male relationships among the elites, yes, but they had subject nations where same-sex marriages were common, and had no problem with it.

      • ahughes798

        Weren’t the Aztecs the really violent dudes who played football with the loser’s heads, did blood sacrifices for their gods, etc.? They seem nice. Or maybe it was the Inca who were insufferably violent?

        • Anarchy Pony

          Pobody’s nerfect…

        • richardgrabman

          Where wasn’t the late 15th and early 16th centuries full of really violent dudes? The sacrifices to the gods were bloody rituals, but so were the British executions and the Inquisition in Europe.

          • Blank Ron

            IOKIYAC

          • ahughes798

            Not denying that every people throughout history has done some rotten crap.

    • Markuserektus

      However, that crossover was reprised by Heiseberg…

  • azeyote

    “no birth control for you, ya whore” you would think the bible humpers would be thrilled that the gays don’t need no stinkin birth control.

  • Vecciojohn

    Scene: The Supreme Court rumpus room. It is late. Four dejected men sit silently. At long last one of them speaks.

    Nino: Ah, wearing my wife’s panties under this robe will never be the thrill it used to be. Thanks, Kennedy, you snake!

  • cousin itt

    a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

    Scalia: the most powerful, dumbass troll in SCOTUS history.

    • willi0000000

      but apparently OK with no tax breaks without representation.

      [ income tax breaks, inheritance tax breaks… ]

  • Charles Cates

    Scalia can shove it. Or pray to his Invisible Space Giant. And never forget it was Karl Rove who came up with the idea of having states vote to forbid marriage equality knowing that would bring out the wingnuts and make sure his hero got a second term.

    • nmmagyar

      Goldar, Silvar and Gamma Libel!

  • bluicebank

    Apparently Justice Roberts is unaware of Marbury v. Madison, which established in 1803 that the Constitution is what the high court says it is. And the Constitution is the Law of the Land.

  • Stuart M.

    Did you catch Thomas’s claim that slavery didn’t take away the dignity of Blacks, that internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II didn’t take away their dignity either? I guess the Nazis didn’t take away the dignity of those 6,000,000 Jews they murdered. All these people have “innate dignity” that government can’t confer or take away, so anyone with a government shoe on their neck should just shut up and take it. Can we recall Thomas now?

    • Spotts1701

      Oh he’s written lots of dissenting opinions – he wrote one yesterday on the housing discrimination case that said by the majority’s reasoning the NBA could be sued for racial discrimination by a bunch of white guys since the league is 70% African-American.
      But he very rarely writes for the majority, because his legal reasoning is so hard-right it makes it almost impossible to get 4 other justices to agree with him. (His dissent on Lawrence v. Texas basically said that the Texas sodomy law was “uncommonly silly” and that it was a waste of resources to arrest and prosecute people for it, but since he was a Federal judge and not a Texas legislator he could not strike it down.)

    • TootsStansbury

      It’s interesting to have an actual fascist on the Supreme Court of these United States. Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about Scalia.

      • CognizantImpiety

        There’s a difference?

    • nothingisamiss

      I’ve seriously wanted this to get more play today.

  • RoyalUglyDude

    The same could be said about any of the Roberts Court’s famous 5-4 decisions:

    It is instead about whether, in our
    democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting
    through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen
    to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according
    to law.

    If this is true, then why hear the case in the first place? (i know, “rule of four,” but it seems like Roberts shouldn’t claim that this was never a Constitutional matter after he didn’t get his way).

  • Blender_415

    Haven’t had a chance to read the full decision yet, but I’ve been giggling my ass off all day at the thought of every wingnutted bigot’s head assploding in unison. Congratulations to all, and have a fantastic pride weekend!

  • Anarchy Pony

    How long til the ghey khalisah rides across the land to dissolve all hetero marriage?

  • OneYieldRegular

    I really can’t believe Roberts. Webster’s Dictionary? Why didn’t he just crib his report from the World Book Encyclopedia?

    • Politics_Nerd

      If I cited ANY dictionary in any one of my law school classes, I would have been thrown out of school.

      • Markuserektus

        Yep, just about zero on the citations list.

    • I’m sure Wikipedia, or even Conservapedia has several articles he could cite as well!

    • Dudleydidwrong

      He neglected to mention that it was “Webster’s Dictionary for Dummies.”

    • Blank Ron

      He searched hard but couldn’t locate a copy of Chambers’ Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences .

  • I’m tempted to tell Scalia I’m gonna find me a man and do a little “jiggery pokery” of my own to celebrate.

    • AnOuthouse

      As long as its ‘interpretive’.

    • schmannity

      The phrase seems vaguely Gaelic gay.

    • ButchWagstaff

      Do you “jibbery” the “pokery” or “pokery” the “jiggery”?

    • Blank Ron

      With or without applesauce?

  • Politics_Nerd

    Sweet, delicious tears of right wing butthurt rage.

  • Steverino247

    Some people are waaaaay too focused on the alleged sexual acts of homosexuals today at places like Breitbart. The closet walls must be closing in on them, I guess.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      They think more about ghey sex than gheys do.

      • Awesome Man

        Well in all fairness it is sinsational.

  • AnOuthouse

    Campaign donations were regulated by legislation. Roberts was happy to overturn that. So much for dermocracy., right?

    • schmannity

      Wrong democracy. BAD!! BAD!!

  • schmannity

    Kalli, I have to congratulate you on holding a Mad About A thing for more than 12 months. I used to be able to keep it up for that long. May I suggest a Wild Turkey or Jack Daniels poultice?

    • Riley Whodat Venable

      WWJD (Who Wants Jack Daniels?)

      • Dudleydidwrong

        Oh! Oh! Oh! Me! Me! Please, sir, may I have another?

      • schmannity

        Ha!

  • VandeGraf

    Bigots of the world unite! You must change the world back to what people dead 200 years thought it might be. You must not tinker with contemporary notions that “the framers” had no idea about. We CANNOT move forward! We must be limited to the speech of the dead. We must not move beyond the philosophy of the ancients! Stay put, remain static! It is the only just and legal thing to do! Take back liberty, by taking away liberty! Spread freedom by removing freedom! It isn’t enough that WE have it, but THEY cannot have it! It is what we say it is, not what they say it is! And if you want to know how to move forward, go to the library, the unit in the back, third shelf down, take out a decaying, yellowed tome, blow off the dust, open the text and let the dead tell you what you are allowed to do.

    • Blank Ron

      That was… epic.

  • Tallmutha

    Roberts has a point. Remember how when the SCOTUS found that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, how the people rose up in revulsion and interracial marriages are still to this day inflammatory and controversial because the political process was shut down and the issue was decided by the courts rather than by the voice of the people through their elected representatives?

    • schmannity

      OTOH, urban schools are a product of white flight.

    • Tallmutha

      Well, I guess if you’re Richard Cohen they ARE still sorta inflammatory. Oh well.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Well Clarence Thomas has a ironclad answer to THAT!

      • Tallmutha

        Uh, he does? Never mind, fuck him.

  • Riley Whodat Venable

    Where is my America? Now Obama is making me celebrate Ramadan by getting Gay Married. Then I have to buy insurance for my new spouse. Am I allowed to were my Rebel Flag thong to the wedding? Is this Roosha?
    /sarc/. This has been a week I’ll remember forever.

    • Blank Ron

      Why, what happened?

  • Jen_Baker_VA

    do not have the authority to determine whether a law is constitutional

    Wait, I thought that was the job of the Court. To decide what shit is and is not constitutional and stuff. Did someone change the reason for the SC and not notify the majority?

    • JustPixelz

      Marbury v Madison begs to differ with Roberts.

  • r m reddicks

    Alito and Roberts issue a call to arms to the nutters. We’ll see how they decide on the hate crimes they’re encouraging.

  • Joshua Norton

    Scalia’s dissent should have ended “also, get off my lawn.”

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Well, there are hippies on his lawn. Of course he wants them off it!

      • Riley Whodat Venable

        Got to keep the loonies off the grass.

        • bobbert

          Thanks, Pink.

          • Blank Ron

            By the way, which one’s Pink?

  • JustPixelz

    Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace.

    I can make a comparable argument that providing health insurance that includes contraception does not plausibly infringe “liberty”. Or that limiting campaign contributions infringes that “liberty”. Or — pay attention Reptards — background gun checks, assault rifle bans, nutritional school lunches, Common Core, immigration reform, higher taxes or people speaking Spanish … none of those things affect your “liberty”.

    • Blank Ron

      Been hearing a great deal from these twits about ‘liberty.’ Haven’t heard peep one from them about ‘responsibility.’

  • Celtic_Gnome

    “…a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

    I must have been out sick the day they covered no social transformation without representation in my civics class.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Funny that the Emancipation Proclamation and Prohibition didn’t count as “social transformation”.

      • grmpy

        Yeah, well they weren’t on that court and by god it wooda bin different i tells ya, if they were. Brown v Board of edumacation too

    • Dudleydidwrong

      I suppose that the Brown decision (school desegregation) has no relationship to the “social transformation” rubric that the dissenters conjured up out of their farts.

  • richardgrabman

    I didn’t know John Roberts was an expert on Nahuatl sexual practices. Zapotecs (who were part of the “Aztec Empire” have always recognized same-sex marriages and we frankly don’t know how the “Aztecs” (properly “Mexica”) regarded gay sex. They did have a gay god, Xochipilli: http://mexfiles.net/2013/11/05/love-not-speak-among-ruins/

  • Jim Holden

    A+. Bonus points for caveman lawyer reference.

  • I can’t wait ’til the video of Scalia with the pool boy is released to the public. I’d never watch it – I value my ability to get and maintain an erection too much – but I’d like it released so that shitweasel can go away without my having to wish for his actual death.

    Edit: I would have no issue with Scalia dying tomorrow, but I won’t WISH for it. Subtle, yet significant difference.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Thanks to the Court’s decision and my subsequent forced gay-marriage to Antonin Scalia, you are talking of my wife, sir, or my husband on alternate days.

  • TootsStansbury

    What about State laws that still allow discimination regarding jobs and housing? Are they gone as well?

    • Reddishrabbit

      Still there. No decision on the standard of review. But it seems likely that reading this, they will fall if challenged (at least if sane judges are assigned), but it will likely come back up before the supremes in a couple of years.

  • cessnadriver

    Imagine babies pounding their spoons on the metal high-chair tray.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      DING DING DING DING DING

    • cleos_mom

      Adult-sized babies, presumably wearing adult-sized diapers.

  • Joshua Norton

    It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to
    contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and
    expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court
    to do so.

    No, seriously, get off my lawn.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    The thing is, the Notorious RBG pointed out that the definition of “marriage” has evolved since 1828, but this is the best that Roberts can come up with?

    We knew going in that Scalia would throw a fucking conniption (and he did) and that Thomas and Alito would follow suit, but Roberts is just being a dickhead here. As Kaili points out, when he was busy making excuses for the Hobby Lobby twits and their “sincere” religious objections, everything was different. Now that it involves gays, well, let’s execute a rear march on all that reasoning.

  • AlanInSF

    It’s a sad day when you can’t tell someone they and all their kind are gravely evil and will burn in hell for all eternity without them saying something critical of you.

  • Enfant Terrible

    Oh yeah? OH YEAH?? You just wait! President Vladimir Putin will shit-can all this “gay” nonsense!!

    • Reddishrabbit

      President Putin of Russia and Texas.

  • miss_grundy

    I think that Lorenzo de Medici hat that Scalia likes to wear so much is cutting off the circulation to his brain.

    • bobbert

      Brain?

  • richardgrabman

    Oh, and by the way, Mr. Roberts. “As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the … Aztecs.”

    From the land of the Aztecs (and the legal heirs to the Aztec Empire), maybe I need to point out that the Mexican Constitution guarantees equality before the law regardless of “affectational preference” and that our Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting same sex marriage a few weeks ago?

    • Mehmeisterjr

      You are overlooking the clear wording of the United States Constitution. Note the Preamble and particularly the passage emphasized below:

      We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and to ensure that everything will be done exactly like the fucking Aztecs forever and that means no gays marriaging it up, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      That’s not in your copy? It’s in John Roberts’ copy. Who are you gonna believe? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or your lying eyes?

      • richardgrabman

        I guess we ripped the heart out of our copies!

      • DracaJam

        I always find myself singing the school house rock version….Poor Chief Roberts, he must have missed that Saturday.

      • Vienna Woods
    • bobbert

      Oh, you inconvenient Aztecs.

  • DahBoner
    • BadKitty904

      Apparently, Americans sill aren’t quite as stupid as Republicans think they are.

      • Vecciojohn

        That’s why public education must be stamped out and the Kardashians must be given tax incentives to breed.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Conservatives opposed going to war with Nazi Germany. Pat Buchanan, to this day, thinks we fought on the wrong side in WWII.

      • Riley Whodat Venable

        Well, Pat’s family has a near 1000 year hate of the English.

        • cleos_mom

          But you have to remember, one of Buchanan’s recent ancestors was a Holocaust casualty. That’s the Barton truth. Poor guy fell out of a guard tower and broke his neck.

    • bbayliss

      Progressive taxation, Vietnam, Iraq, women’s right to choose, mixed race marriage, gay marriage, rock ‘n roll, and a diet that includes fruit and vegetables.

    • cleos_mom

      “Oh, but I’m only conservative on economic issues!

      Now whatja doin’ in my neighborhood, boy?”

  • hvdv

    We have a reading comprehension problem here re : 14th amendment. Not seeing the part where the wimmins and the gheys are not to have any of the rights. This is probably on account of how I am dumb, and Roberts/Scalia are S-M-R-T, but honestly, that shit leaves the door open to all kinds of equality, and slippery slopes, and what-have-yous.

    • bobbert

      Based on the early excerpts, I figured Roberts had just written a vanilla dissent (so he wouldn’t be joined with Fat Tony’s), but it’s beginning to look like he has written himself into infamy. Mr. Hobby Lobby now says that “sincere beliefs” ain’t worth shit?

      Anyhow, completely unrelated, but trying to keep my program in order, are you the hvdv formerly known as Editor?

      • hvdv

        Yes sir.

  • Lex Luthor

    Butthurt is a sign that you aren’t using enough lube. These folks are probably all products of abstinence-only sex ed.

  • Tio_Doidinho

    The court hereby submits this affidavit as Exhibit A.

    • zerosumgame0005

      that moment when the acid peaks and you think the lobster is staring at you…

    • Me not sure

      “It wasn’t a rock it was a rock lobster”
      The B-52’s

  • Tualha

    Best part of Scalia’s whine dissent:

    The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.

    Bwahahaha! Is there anyone on Earth who believes that?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      We’re in the process of contacting some lost tribesmen in the Philippines right now to determine this.

      Just got a message from them: “We may be primitive, but you can’t sell us THAT!”

  • BadKitty904

    Personally, I think Tom Jefferson pretty well covered this:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Damn Muslin atheist socialist Jefferson. WTF did he know?

      • bbayliss

        How to screw a slave?

    • Anarchy Pony

      Except for the negrahs. But he didn’t write that down…

      • cleos_mom

        One of the better reasons for not considering the Constitution something embedded in stone until the end of steaming time.

    • bbayliss

      Except for the fact that that they were John Lockes words and read “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of PROPERTY…since most of Jefferson’s property was in the form of human slaves the liberty and property aspects were hard to reconcile, thus, happiness.

      • bobbert

        Nevertheless, that’s what it says.

  • Notreelyhelping

    Roberts: Well, I gotta go with the ACA or I’ll crash the economy, and Kennedy’s a lost cause; so I’ll placate the nutjobs.

    Scalia: What can I say that’ll get the most press and jack up the speaking fees?

    Thomas: Doesn’t turn me on. Fuck ’em.

    Alito: Obama dissed me. He did. Well, we’ll see who laughs last.

    • mailman27

      ALL THE DISSENTS ARE ABOUT THE SPEAKING FEES!!1!!!1! *ahem* Sorry about the ALL CAPS. They’re just so intellectually bankrupt they can’t be about anything else.

    • Tualha

      Thomas: I do want to ask one question, though.

      [ALL LAUGH.]

  • HobbesEvilTwin

    the tears of these four butthurt lawyers will sustain me for a LONG time.

  • Swampay

    The Supreme Court should never make a decision that radically changes society. Except, in this case society is already changing and the Court is just playing catch-up. Also, too, decisions that radically change society by declaring that corporations are people, my friend, those are totes legit. Because, corporations, I guess.

  • lesterthegiantape

    Comrades, remember: this is it. We lose all the goddamn time. We can’t help it. But every once in a while, we win.

  • BoatOfVelociraptors

    My sex holes have all the feels. Errr…

  • PigDootsMolloy

    I take it Nino, John, Clarence and Sam are not coming to the Brazilian fart porn party…

    • Relativicus

      Hah! I just saw a fart porn video for the first, and last, time the other day. I never knew such a thing existed, but I wasn’t surprised it does.

      • docterry6973

        Rule 34. If it exists, there is Internet porn about it.

    • Brazilian Fart Porn

      They are barred from any party of mine!

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman…”

    Pulling bogus facts out of your ass, Tony? You’re not doing supreme courting right. Why don’t you just fucking retire already, and let someone grounded in the real world have a shot at it?

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman…”

    Pulling bogus facts out of your ass, Tony? You’re not doing supreme courting right. Why don’t you just fucking retire already, and let someone grounded in the real world have a shot at it?

    • ButchWagstaff

      Retire? They’ll have to pry his bloated corpse off the bench.

      • Blank Ron

        I’ll get the spatula.

        • BackDoorMan

          … that would be the custom made spatula attached to a Front Loader, yes?

          • Blank Ron

            That’s the one, and boy, those hydraulic connections were a bitch.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    The Scalia Sick Burn generator gave me this:

    “One would think that Villago Delenda Est’s sentiments are a diseased panopticon. Just who do we think we are?”

    • Relativicus

      “One would think that Relativicus’s thoughts are quite absurd. I would hide my head in a bag.”

      Scalia’s an ass, but when he’s right, he’s right.

    • dshwa

      “One would think that Dshwa’s sentiments are a looming specter of unthinkable horror. Huh.”

  • sarahjane1912

    “.. if everyone had just slowed down and allowed bigots to come around eventually …”

    Sounds like he was cribbing from the Tony Abbott playbook. *Shakes fist*
    Jeebus. I can’t believe I hail from a country that is totally cool about abortion, maternity pay/leave, minimum wages, union representation yada yada yada … AND WE’RE STILL BEHIND ON MARRIAGE!

    I think I have to go and cry some more. Sorry. :(

    Oh. Sorry. Fantastic news, America. We’re jealous.

  • grmpy

    Those four have no business sitting as judges on the supreme court. All they offered was opinion with no substance or fact. They write this garbage as if it means something.

    “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. […] The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

    not once does he mention or show why the analogy is wrong.
    They had no problem voting to put bush in the white house when that certainly wasn’t their call.Fuck these unwashed assholes

    • anniegetyerfun

      To be fair, Bush was put in pre-Alito and pre-Roberts (since he appointed them).

  • freakishlystrong

    Yeah, fellas? As great as these last two decisions have gone, it still doesn’t absolve you of the awfulness of Citizen’s United and the Hobby Lobby shit. So, fuck you all.

  • BMW

    “…we expect the justices who raged against unelected judges making decisions to resign any second now, because if they have no authority anyway, what’s the point?”

    Well, of course!

  • Ah the appeals to history always amuse me, because I can always whip out little factoids like this tidbit from Montaigne’s “Essais”, describing a church in Rome in the sixteenth century:

    ” “[In that church] certain Portuguese, all young men, had entered into a strange brotherhood. The male couples had married each other at Mass, with the same rites that we conduct in our marriages. They celebrated Easter together, read the same marriage gospel service, and then lived and slept together. The Roman wits said that, as with a man and a woman who have been conjoined, the fact that they shared the circumstances of a marriage alone made it legitimate. To these wise folk, it seemed that any marriage consecrated by the ceremonies and mysteries of the Church would be equally right.”

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      The Aztecs count, the Portuguese don’t. That’s just common sense.

      • Blank Ron

        I guess the Aztecs are now honourary Americans. Lucky them.

  • Relativicus

    “Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage…”

    Great, now people may look unfavorably on same-sex marriage.

    Still, on a morbid note, somebody is going to do something stupid and horrible and you can read the inevitable conservative rationales for the tragedy in these dissents.

    • Blank Ron

      Or clouds.

      • anniegetyerfun

        Too late.

        • antiquatedtory

          Isn’t that Scalia?

  • Rex B

    If this were a question about expanding corporate rights beyond tradition or anything envisioned in the Constitution, then Roberts would be all for it.

  • cleos_mom

    If Roberts is so distrait over “unelected judges”, he can resign. If he doesn’t, he’s willingly continuing in a role he supposedly doesn’t want.

    Ditto to Alito, Scalia, and Scalia’s obedient groupie.

    • docterry6973

      You wanted to write ‘Scalia’s bitch’ I bet.

  • fawkedifiknow

    In about five years, these dissents will be pointed at and laughed at in the same way Dred Scott, Plessey v. Ferguson, and Hobby Lobby are in law schools and the history books now.

  • nightmoth

    “Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a“liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect.”

    Yo, Clarence—kinda like the Second Amendment for gun nuts??!!

  • diogenez

    For Scalito and Friends. Also – all of the bigoted fuckers who contributed millions of dollars to support Proposition 8.

  • jmk

    “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

    Uh-oh – Scalia’s dissent has a typo – he meant to say “THIS opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

    • Me not sure

      APPLESAUCE!

  • docterry6973

    So segregation should have continued until George Wallace and the Alabama legislature were persuaded that the black people would like some rights, please?

    Imagine an America where these dissents were the reason that gays were DENIED equal rights. Because the Aztecs said so? We’ll have that America in 2017 unless we get out the vote.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    “Understand well what this dissent is
    about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of
    marriage should be changed to include mixed-race couples. It is instead
    about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest
    with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with
    five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve
    legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about
    the answer.”

    There you go, Judge Roberts. Carry on from there.

  • Warpde

    LGBT and ACA wrapped int one.
    With a Scalia cameo.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOSdtsJg_LU

  • Last Hussar

    “But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

    Um, yes? Isn’t that sort of the point of the plaintiffs bringing the case?

    Let me help the Justices out

    “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

    By saying that person A can marry, and gain the privileges associated, but person B can’t, you are in breach of the 14th amendment.

    That is the wording. You don’t have to wonder about intention, the writing is clear. If you claim it is not the intention, how can you demonstrate this? (See my post elsewhere about sloppy American law writing)

  • Maxk1947

    Does Justice Thomas even attend the arguments? Three of the Plaintiff couples risked not being able to raise their children if they couldn’t marry, as only one of the pair could be the legal parent
    of any one child.

  • jim2011
  • anniegetyerfun

    Alito is sort of the Bobby Jindal of the court on this one. “Hey, guys, same here! Wait up! Guys?”

  • anniegetyerfun

    Also, knock it off with the Han Chinese bullshit right there, Roberts. Those dudes were all about extra wives and concubines as far as the eye could see.

    • James W

      And gay lovers, too. Homosexuality was widely accepted and normalised in ancient and middle ages China, and indeed many Western visitors to China came back approving of just about everything EXCEPT the cheerful gay lovin’. Men would still marry women to continue the lineage, of course, but there was an “understanding”, as it were.

      Movements against homosexuality came in the 1500s, and are generally thought to be the result of Christian and Islamic attitudes towards homosexuality filtering into the Chinese mindset.

      • anniegetyerfun

        Word. Lots of the wives used to get it on together, as well.

  • SpaceCaptainWarlock

    He should have just said “Well, corporations are still people, so nyeh!” just to remind everyone how little of an “activist judge” he actually is.

  • Barfolonyew Daily

    And it’s scaring the piss out of Russians !!! After we invade their country and take their women, our military will butt sex them into submission =)

Previous articleNice Knowing Y’all, Louie Gohmert Says God’s Gonna Smite Us Now
Next articleHillary Clinton’s Gay Marriage Video Will Give Your Cold Shriveled Heart ALL The Feels