Supreme Court Losers Lose Their Sh*t Over Gay Marriage, And It's Delightful
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.
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.