They're Very, Very Upset

« October 2014  
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
14
18
19
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Memo to the National Organization for Marriage, Ted Cruz, and Ben Shapiro: SUCK ON IT. YOU KNOW YOU WANNA.

In the small victories department, the Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage in a bunch of states this week by refusing to hear appeals to court decisions overturning gay marriage bans in that bunch of states. And the best part, as always, is the wailing and the gnashing of teeth from the Wrong Side of History Department, or, in other words, IDIOTS SAYING THE DAMNDEST THINGS!

"The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage' has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently. That's the absurd belief we are being told to accept." - Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

Yep! Well, except for the "absurd" part. It's not our fault that society wasn't open enough to allow people to challenge marriage laws under the 14th amendment. It's actually your fault, if we're going to be honest about it.

It's not that "nobody noticed" that the right was there, of course. The Brian Browns of the world have been actively working to repress and suppress that right, and other rights, to make your fake god happy. So now you're being told to accept it. And you probably won't, but that's OK. Nobody getting married wants or needs your acceptance and approval now that you're no longer in a position of authority on the matter. Feel free to suffer.

"This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures. " - Ted Cruz, doing a little Cruzing of his own.

Cruz is right about one thing. This is definitely "judicial activism" at its worst, since activism implies being active, actively doing something. And since the judiciary in question decided not to do anything. You really can't get worse activism than complete inaction.

Of course, calling gay marriage bans "considered judgment" is like calling Ted Cruz a "serious 2016 contender". You can say it all you want, but it doesn't make it true. The knee-jerk religious reactionary bullshit of a bunch of entrenched state bigots is certainly "judgment", but I wouldn't call it "considered". It's definitely been subverted, though. I can tell because of how cranky you are.

"The Court clearly wants to wait until a majority of states have been forced to embrace same-sex marriage by lower-level appeals courts. Then they can determine that a "trend-line" has been established, suggest that society has "evolved," and declare that a new standard must be enshrined. That, of course, was the logic of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), in which the Court waited 17 years to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), stating that anal penetration was a hard-fought Constitutional right." - A very butthurt Ben Shapiro.

Benny, of course, has the wrong end of the stick here, if you'll pardon the expression. Like most anti-gay bigots, he's obsessed with anal sex, and thus cannot distinguish between anal penetration, which is not strictly a Constitutional right, and the ability for consenting adults to engage in private behavior that may or may not include anal penetration, which is in fact strictly a Constitutional right.

And frankly, I don't know what Supreme Court Ben Shapiro thinks we have, but being somewhat familiar with the Roberts court, and the various members of it, I'm pretty sure an elaborate plan to punt on gay marriage until they can follow the trend-line of an evolving society is not their strong suit. The four most conservative justices on the court could have made them hear these appeals if they'd wanted. That they didn't isn't a leftist conspiracy. I don't know what it is, really. I'd suggest it's the inevitability of history, but this is Scalia and Thomas we're dealing with here.

Syndicate content