"I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction."
So says Jean Podrasky, who is: 1. a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, 2. the cousin of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and 3. going to be sitting — at tomorrow's oral argument on same-sex marriage — in the section reserved for family and guests.
I wonder who else will be seated in that section? I'll bet it will be full of people who support same-sex marriage. Of all the family and friends of the Justices, able to get these reserved seats, who would ask to attend this session? The Ted Olson fans? I'm sure there are those.
Podrasky doesn't claim to know Roberts's views on the matter, and I'm sure he wouldn't like to be thought of as someone who decides cases based on where "he sees the tide is going." Even if he were a tide man, one could just as well stand back and let the tide go there on its own.
Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
116 comments:
"Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose."
So says the Oracle of Madison. Time will tell, and it will be a long time before the tale is fully told.
Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose.
Care to support your assertion?
I quote ricpic from another thread:
What can thousands of years of Western Civilization teach us about morality? Puhleeze! What can a wet behind the ears barely out of adolescence Princeton undergrad teach us about morality? EVERYTHING!!
Your intellectual vanity here, Althouse, is one of the most preposterously ridiculous things I've ever witnessed.
It takes a brilliant intellectual to produce this kind of confusion.
You have no idea what you are doing here. None.
Do you remembering saying that all hell won't break loose over this? I remember people saying the exact same thing when everybody came out of the closet in SF prior to the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic.
What harm could it possibly cause?
How embarrassing. We all have obnoxious relatives, but how often does one of yours run to the press to tell everybody you're a hopeless ninny?
Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose.
Hysterical.
Since gays can't repopulate and have a shorter life expectancy, you have it exactly backwards.
OH, and there are like a ton of great nations in the history of the world which have sanctified this abnormal, immoral, and unhealthy behavior through judicial fiat.
Really. There are.
Like all of them!
Which way would they prefer to lose?
Fighting tooth and nail. Arguing on logic rather than emotion. Not backing down when faced with hysterical, nonsensical accusations of bigotry. Refusing to go along with the tide. Going kicking and screaming into that good night.
I agree gay marriage is inevitable now.
Isn't it odd that the French of all people are currently out in the streets protesting same sex marriage?
Why is the government involved in defending or saving marriage at all?
Because marriage is the institution that reproduces the state. That's why governments care.
Why they care about homosexual marriages: ? More power? Sticking there fingers into more redistributive pies? Who knows.
Gay marriage is already the law in NY, where I lived.
I don't involved myself in any political battle, except to bullshit on a couple of websites.
So, I'll go along with whatever happens.
Althouse, you're quite a show here. You're making all the same mistakes you made as a kid over feminism.
I can only imagine the outcry from many many Althousians when the SC decides that DOMA is unconstitutional.
"Which way would they prefer to lose?"
Having read Andrew Ferguson's Weekly Stardard article, I know which way he prefers and I'm with him.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/science-same-sex-marriage_708842.html
two generations ago, the “scientific consensus,” as represented by the American Psychiatric Association, was that homosexuality was a “mental disorder.”
Well, it still is.
But hey, we're in the Age of Obama (and his daughter's deserving privacy!) man, so emotion trumps reason.
It will make the ACA decision look like a tea party. I mean the kind with tea and crumpets.
I agree gay marriage is inevitable now.
Just lie back. And think of England.
It will make the ACA decision look like a tea party. I mean the kind with tea and crumpets.
As I said, Inga, gay marriage is already the law in NY, where I live. I'll just keep on living as usual, no matter the outcome.
You might try listening to the "outcry." It's called the voice of wisdom, experience and human tradition.
We ignored it, and the result was the AIDS epidemic. You're ready to go down that road again. Peace be with you. You're welcome to that hubris.
I agree gay marriage is inevitable now.
So is the economic and social collapse of the United States and the rest of the Western world into a decades long depression and decline of society and decline in living standards.
Connection?
"Its opponents can only lose."
So can its supporters. So everyone will be equally unhappy. Yay judicial fiat.
Is it possible that homosexuality is more common among members and kinfolk of the American ruling class?
ST, hubris, funny YOU mention that, LOL!
gay marriage will win, but it will be a phyrric victory as they dismantled the rationale for marriage benefits in order to claim them.
I can only imagine the outcry from many many Althousians when the SC decides that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Why do you think that? It is unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority in these matters, marriage or abortion, which should be properly left to each State under the 10th amendment.
"Care to support your assertion?"
Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process.
It's not going to go the other way. It's obvious. You might want to adjust to reality.
ST, hubris, funny YOU mention that, LOL!
I am non-hubristic enough to have learned that the millennial Biblical and folk warnings about the behaviors of gay men should be heeded.
Yes.
"Which way would they prefer to lose?"
Honestly, I assume. But some would rather be on the "winning" side regardless. Like in the 2008 election. You just had to be part of that - it was so cool.
Ann, if you're correct and gay marriage is inevitable it might be more profitable to ask of gay marriage proponents "How do you want to win?"
Because right now it's looking like you'll win by judicial fiat, without bothering to fix any of the problems that have degraded the institution of civil marriage and just extending it by decree to a particular class of people.
Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?
An adverse court opinion will strengthen them. A loss at the polls will weaken them. If they accept that they are going to lose, at least for this century, they ought to be rooting for an overreaching court opinion that is outrageous on its face.
Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process.
Which is not to say that it will win in popular opinion or be accepted by society. Making something 'legal' doesn't make it something that people will accept or condone.
I'm sure the nimble mind of the Dread Justice Roberts is already in the midst of working it's magic, as it cherry picks random sentences and phrases from throughout the Constitution. Weaving a tapestry of moral relativism that will leave our heads spinning when we are allow our first peek at it.
If ssm wins through the Supreme Court, conservatives can move on to the more abstract and better principled argument against judicial activism.
If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues -- where they will look worse and worse to more and more people.
It's obvious to me that conservative opponents to ssm will be much better off losing in court that going through this political process.
And I think smart conservatives who are writing today in the National Review or the WSJ or wherever actually know this. They are simply pre-loading their judicial activism argument. They can't come out and say what I'm saying or their judicial activism argument won't launch.
"Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process."
You say that as though the two things are distinct.
So, Brigham Young was right after all?
If homosexual men and women, and their heterosexual patrons, especially pro-abortion and pro-choice advocates, do not support normalization of every dysfunctional behavior, both lethal and nonlethal, then they should experience the same emotional and legal extortion they have exploited to force acceptance of their behavior.
That said, once people accepted elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder) as normal or a legitimate choice, there really is little objective basis for resisting the normalization of other dysfunctional behaviors, especially those which do not guarantee an immediate death.
Forward to dysfunctional convergence.
Ann Althouse said...
If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues
Notice how conservatives, never liberals, are "sidetracked"
Funny that, huh?
Ann Althouse said...
"Care to support your assertion?"
Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process.
It's not going to go the other way. It's obvious. You might want to adjust to reality.
You sound like an old science fiction movie! "Your destruction is inevitable! Submit now!"
Or, to paraphrase Madison Man, "If it's inevitable, just lie back and try to enjoy it!"
Althouse is arguing political strategy while the rest of us are arguing moral outcomes.
Tell you the truth, I don't give much of a fuck about political strategy.
" "How do you want to win?""
Great point, but as I've said they don't care how or about the repercussions. They want what they want, and they want it now. Until they get it. Then, as with feminism, it will be something else. There is always something else, less valuable, less necessary that we just have to get. The cost is immaterial - the value is in the wanting.
If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues
You have the temerity to make this assertion after the latest Presidential election where the candiate who did nothing but talk about jobs, taxes, debt, and the economy lost.
"Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?"
I'd prefer it be a political process. Rather than a universally offensive and confusing legal mess, like Roe v Wade.
I imagine that there were a lot of people -- probably a significant number of them inside the Supreme Court in 1973 -- who thought, "Abortion rights are simply the way of the future. We might as well be on the right side of history. Get on the winning team. Hop on the bandwagon."
See how that goes?
You can see, however, from Althouse's focus on strategy, how she has been so successful in triumphing in the world of clerical office politics.
Pretty basic difference in outlook for me. I was in the world of clerical office politics only out of necessity. All I wanted was the money in exchange for as little of my time as possible. I loathed the S&M game of politics.
Didn't do as well as Althouse as a result. So, I do understand what she's saying.
If same sex marriage "wins" on these grounds, I do not see why just about any other arrangement people can think of would not also qualify.
Ann Althouse said...
If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues -- where they will look worse and worse to more and more people
Considering that 30 states have banned SSM, how much more "fighting" is there to do?
You realize that your whole response there was nothing but spin, right?
I mean, there is no actual substance to anything you said.
PS: how did "continuing to fight" against abortion work out for conservatives?
Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?
If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Scott Walker was right: The Govt needs to get out of the marriage-sanctioning business, and this victory will be a good push in the right direction.
Find a Church that will marry you. Then sign up for Civil Union Rights that only apply to married couples.
I love watching the left in action.
An idea is "inevitable" so you dummies opposed to it just shut up already.
No matter this in favor of said idea can't articule a good reason for it. You simpletons shut up and let us inevitablers tell you what is best. Umkay?
I would prefer that same sex marriage advocates win at the ballot box. In the long run, it will be better for the country if this change happens through persuasion rather than fiat.
We are supposed to be a free country after all.
"If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues -- where they will look worse and worse to more and more people."
Social conservatism will continue to drag fiscal conservatism to the ocean floor, like an anchor.
I don't see it changing, either.
I love watching the left in action.
Althouse is no longer really a leftist.
She likes winning. Her advice in this thread is all strategic advice on how to win.
That's where she likes to focus. It has served her well.
Somehow, and how is totally unclear because conservatives "look bad" - Republicans fully control 26 state legislatures, 30 Governorships, and the House of Representatives while having a platform of marriage being between 1 man & 1 woman.
The horror!
Find a Church that will marry you. Then sign up for Civil Union Rights that only apply to married couples
Agreed, except I would reverse that.
First: sign up for a Civil Union for all the legal rights
Then: find a church that will marry you [if you can] and leave the Catholic Church and other religious institutions that object to your lifestyle out of it.
On a broader note, it surprises me that marriage being what it is, that is to say a vestige of a patriarchal society where men worked to protect their genetic heritage by controlling who their daughters chose as reproductive partners, I'm really surprised that the alternative lifestyle wants to have anything to do with it.
I guess its just the best pointy stick they have to poke in the eye of their conservative friends.
"Didn't do as well as Althouse as a result."
yea, but her groupies are old, and talk too much.
Her advice in this thread is all strategic advice on how to win.
Considering the silly vapidness of her "advice" I'm counting on a ringing defeat of Democrats in 2014.
Scott Walker was right: The Govt needs to get out of the marriage-sanctioning business, and this victory will be a good push in the right direction.
Walker already backtracked on that word salad which was more of a hypothetical. His Huckleberry base and far right donors would never support it.
"Her advice in this thread is all strategic advice on how to win."
That's a common way of feigning cruel neutrality among the intelligentsia. A fear of being lumped in with the rubes of either side.
"Find a Church that will marry you. Then sign up for Civil Union Rights that only apply to married couples
Agreed, except I would reverse that.
First: sign up for a Civil Union for all the legal rights
Then: find a church that will marry you [if you can] and leave the Catholic Church and other religious institutions that object to your lifestyle out of it."
3/25/13, 12:24 PM
That is fair. Don't many Eurpoean countries do this?
*European*
bagoh20:
Look to Europe for the consequences of heeding the popular argument.
The issue of rights has been exploited to pave the way for the emergence of a new elite class of men and women. They will win through promises to fulfill dreams of material, physical, and ego instant gratification, irrespective of their compatibility with reality -- perception matters.
A majority of the lower class, and a minority of the middle class, will support redistributive change and a consolidation of capital and power by a new elite class. This class prefers to operate through establishment of monopolies and monopolistic practices enforced through granted and coerced authority. The cycle of function and dysfunction will begin anew.
The greedy poor defend the greedy rich and support their cause to wrest control.
Oh, well. Once the choice was made to normalize abortion (i.e. dysfunctional behavior), there could only be progress (i.e. monotonic change) thereafter.
While I was writing my post just above, I see that Prof. Althouse added a nicely clever Machiavellian spin to her thesis;
"If ssm wins through the Supreme Court, conservatives can move on to the more abstract and better principled argument against judicial activism.
"If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues -- where they will look worse and worse to more and more people."
I find it difficult to challenge that argument, as a cold political calculation.
One thing that we can say for sure is that the 2016 election will likely hold the power of the Supreme Court in its grasp. Unless -- God forbid -- that Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts or Alito die well before the end of Obama's presidency, there will probably be two Republican seats to fill after 2016. That 2016 race (in which Althouse thinks Republicans could be advantaged[?!] by a pro-gay marriage court decision) could well be a referendum on Court appointments, with the Republican base energized by a hostile Court decision in Windsor.
It might well be good electoral politics, if one doesn't care about federalized gay marriage.
But I expect that I will be just as offended by a pro-ssm Supreme Court decision in these cases, as I was offended by Roe v. Wade. My overall offense to Roe v. Wade has only grown over the years, even as my view on abortion has remained decidedly moderate.
Even Justice Ginsberg -- as devout a supporter of abortion rights as one could imagine at the Supreme Court -- seems dissatisfied with the jurisprudential effect of Roe v. Wade.
Althouse,
Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process.
It's not going to go the other way. It's obvious. You might want to adjust to reality.
Your view of reality is distinctly different from that of most Americans, who oppose gay marriage.
garage mahal said...
His Huckleberry base and far right donors would never support it.
Here is a map of the WI recall results.
"The Huckleberry base" is almost the entirety of the state.
Bozo.
If homosexual "marriage" is legalized, we will all lose...beginning with the children who will be adopted by the homosexual couples selfishly claiming that they are just as able to provide children with a normal upbringing as a true married couple are.
"The Huckleberry base" is almost the entirety of the state.
Exactly.
All those Huckleberry base voters are outraged that there was no indictment despite clear evidence of secret routers.
Another boring Althouse ssm post to draw some comments. The key is understanding this blog, and avoiding using the Amazon portal.
Althouse condescends in the earlier thread:
"Keep working on it. Some day you may understand this blog."
The purpose of this blog is to generate income for an aging third rate legal mind who was lucky enough for whatever reason to get some web traffic thrown her way by Glenn Reynolds.
What grabbed me in that article is the mention of a section in the courtroom that's "reserved for family and guests" of the Justices. Really?! The Supreme Court as the trendiest of high-end restaurants: connections will get you in.
I could understand this practice for a special occasion, such as a Justice's first session on this bench --- sure, save his or her family some space. But what on earth justifies these people's interest in a case being allowed to automatically trump that of all others vying for the limited space?
Nepotism at its finest --- and totally unremarked on.
The purpose of this blog is to generate income for an aging third rate legal mind who was lucky enough for whatever reason to get some web traffic thrown her way by Glenn Reynolds.
1. Yes the purpose of this blog is to generate positive things for Althouse. Nothing wrong with that. I doubt that income is the priority motivation.
2. I've known and worked for the most powerful, influential and brilliant litigators of our generation. Believe me, Althouse has a first rate legal mind. That's not an issue.
Dust Bunny Queen:
That's how it should be done: equal protection, not equal status. There are legitimate reasons to discriminate between behaviors. Some are classified for rejection, most are tolerated, and a few are considered to engender positive progress and are either established as normal or normalized.
Homosexual behavior falls in the second class. This is not a judgment of the individual, but of their behavior. There is a difference. The behavior offers no positive value to either society or humanity.
It's interesting that they have chosen to normalize first, abortion, and second, homosexual behavior. Perhaps they believe that if they succeed in normalizing the principal dysfunctional behaviors, then they will encounter reduced resistance to normalization of other behaviors, which are often nonlethal and do not constitute evolutionary dysfunction.
In any case, there is clearly a symbiotic relationship between advocates for normalization of homosexual behavior, and heterosexuals who desire normalization of their dysfunctional behaviors, including abortion. Still, I wonder who is directing this dysfunctional convergence.
I'm signed up to grit my teeth and go along with democratic outcomes.
So - I'd prefer to lose by a contentious democratic process.
Is the damage done by the RvW end-run so invisible that we want another?
President-Mom-Jeans said...
The purpose of this blog is to generate income for an aging third rate legal mind who was lucky enough for whatever reason to get some web traffic thrown her way by Glenn Reynolds.
Mommy, I know she hurt your feelings, but it would be hard to exaggerate how stupid this comment is.
James: Isn't it odd that the French of all people are currently out in the streets protesting same sex marriage?
Odd? Not really. It's a mistake to try to put the French into Anglosphere categories. The protests/debate there should be of interest to anyone invested in this issue, though, and I'd recommend hitting the French blogosphere and MSM coverage (even if you have to do it with Google translate). Very, very interesting.
How chivalrous of you Tank, leaping to the defense of the damsel in distress.
My feelings, while irrelevant, certainly were not hurt by her condescending comment to another poster.
Just doing a little speaking truth to power, passe after 2008 I know.
Still, I wonder who is directing this dysfunctional convergence.
It is the usual rebellion of humans against the laws of God.
Shouting Thomas:
Her arguments reveal an ulterior motive. However, she does present a diversity of perspectives, even acknowledging the legitimacy of each position. It's not obvious that her judgment is selective. It's also not obvious which standards determine her positions.
Still, she enables and permits a proper discussion of the issues, and that already places her at the forefront of forum hosts.
Perhaps she could be best characterized as a judge, who provides a forum where each party can present their arguments, and occasionally admonishes them to follow the rules.
A pro-SSM decision by SCOTUS will make Roe v. Wade look like a walk in the park. Beware, liberals!
Meanwhile in France.......
and wait until polyandry & polygamy really start rearing...something.
A couple of stops down, lowering the age of concent.
So how low will it go, 13? Or should we just progress to the old-fashioned "rule" of menstruation?
Or is that FORWARD? I forget sometimes.
And how will parents handle this?
Legal sex & abortion and sterilization at a tender age, but no, you can't get your ears pierced or tattoos?
Seriously?
There's no reason to get upset over Savile in Britain, then, is there?
Shouting Thomas:
Perhaps. However, in lieu of faith, there are certain objective standards, which should through either short or long-term consequences moderate our behavior.
The progress of dysfunction, and its repeating cycles, seems to be an inevitable part of human development. There will be a dysfunctional convergence, followed by a local or global reset. That is the pattern of our history. There is always a divergence from a stable state, typically sooner than later, when dysfunctional behaviors reach a critical mass.
Whatever thoughts you might have about our host here, Mom, the last thing she is is a third rate legal mind. You're right, she doesn't need me to protect here. It's self-evident, except to you, for some reason.
Maybe it's my fault for not being clear. Mom, you often make good points, but that kind of thing undercuts YOUR credibility.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions about what constitutes top legal thinking Tank, as I am to mine.
I'm not impressed, that may put me in the minority, I'm okay with that.
I'm not out for credibility, I'm not out to influence people, I just call things like I see them.
Oh, boy, "I believe he sees where the tide is going.", not unlike Lindbergh and Old Joe Kennedy telling us to jump in bed with Hitler.
Forget principle, go with the flow.
Inga said...
I can only imagine the outcry from many many Althousians when the SC decides that DOMA is unconstitutional.
No big whoop, it just returns responsibility back to the states, where it belongs.
DOMA was just some pandering by Willie, as he and the Hildabeast are doing by flipping.
Ann Althouse said...
Care to support your assertion?
Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process.
Translation:
it has to be won in the courts because we haven't got the votes, otherwise.
garage mahal said...
"The Huckleberry base" is almost the entirety of the state.
Exactly.
That "Huckleberry base" just re-elected Barack Obama a few months ago, and sent Tammy Baldwin to the Senate.
No, a lot of vote fraud and ringers from out of state re-elected Barack Obama a few months ago, and sent Tammy Baldwin to the Senate.
If SSM wins by judicial fiat, lie back and think of Ingaland.
His Huckleberry base and far right donors would never support it.
You should re-read Huckleberry Finn. "Huckleberry" is not an insult.
Really, you should read (or re-read) it. I did two weeks ago, and it is an awesome book, and Huck Finn is an amazing character.
President Mom-Jeans:
Not that I think Prof. A needs me to defend her, but I'm curious: If that's what you think, why are you here?
I'm suddenly thinking of the rant a college classmate delivered, on the subject of a foreign student who always ran down America: "You're a guest here! It's like going to someone's house and saying, Your wife's ugly and her cooking sucks!"
Or, I guess, it's like speaking truth to power. Which is never a convincing declaration, in the first person.
JPS wrote: I'm suddenly thinking of the rant a college classmate delivered, on the subject of a foreign student who always ran down America: "You're a guest here! It's like going to someone's house and saying, Your wife's ugly and her cooking sucks!"
I suspect that Althouse's traffic would suffer if everyone just lined up in awe and didn't challenge her reasons and beliefs.
chickelit said...
If SSM wins by judicial fiat, lie back and think of Ingaland.
good one, but it's more like thinking of the Reichstag - which is the same thing.
chickelit:
"I suspect that Althouse's traffic would suffer if everyone just lined up in awe and didn't challenge her reasons and beliefs."
Did I imply that that's what we should all do?
I'm all for challenging reasons and beliefs. I don't always agree with our host, and I think it'd make for a boring comments section if we all sat around agreeing with each other.
If I shared PM-J's opinion, however, I wouldn't bother reading. I'm not trying to be the etiquette police, and I'm not calling for genuflection or pulled punches. Just found it puzzling.
Gawd, that demented poodle is still yapping, he's been at it all morning, Chickelit, throw him some rabbit poop.
He's a "good man" who will "go in a good direction." It's people like this who turned me against SSM. The good/bad news is that they are exactly like the comfortably oblivious status quo that everyone was suppposedly rebelling against back in the 1960s. We're living in backwards land.
Why do I post here?
A very good question. Originally I started being aware of the blog due to the recall election run-up, and I enjoyed reading the comments. Nothing like free content that is constantly updated, which I suspect many of the lurkers on this site would say as their reason for the page views.
What would be the motivation to post then, if not to gain credibility or influence people?
To some extent, just the satisfaction of expressing my opinion in a written form, the digital equivalent of a a message in a bottle. If that bottle was then thrown at the head of a leftist idiot.
And making fun of bitchtits the uneducated brings enjoyment as well.
Shut up, JPS.
(To paraphrase JPS.)
Perhaps as a more direct answer to your question JPS, I find the vast majority of value in this site to be found within the comments, rather than on Ann's contributions outside of coverage of the wacky world of Madison politics.
Inga said...
Gawd, that demented poodle is still yapping, he's been at it all morning, Chickelit, throw him some rabbit poop.
You really hate free speech, don't you? and you really can't come up with anything good as a comback.
Too bad you can't whip up a good Lefty lynch mob.
President Mom-Jeans:
That makes sense. I appreciate the response. (I admit I had to look up Mom Jeans after seeing the term a few times, so I can be slow in figuring things out.)
Shutting up now, Amartel.
And making fun of bitchtits the uneducated brings enjoyment as well
That's what disturbed children do.
"And making fun of bitchtits the uneducated brings enjoyment as well"
---------------------
"That's what disturbed children do."
3/25/13, 4:13 PM
Yeah and he seems to think what he does is admirable somehow to anyone on this blog besides his soul sisters, Meth and Whores.
There is nothing stopping Jean from marrying her partner right now, today. She has to find the right church, but that's pretty easily done nowadays.
We will have the courthouse loaded to the rafters with all gays in every supreme court justices life. Family, friends, neighbors, etc.
Except Scalia-there is not one gay in his entire extended family throught beginning of the first Scalia to the last little Scalia.
It will never win in the South or Utah ever-not by the "democratic process". But interracial marriage would never have been approved there either.
So the southern fags (who are weird) can either move or just live with it.
"Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?"
Political process, obviously. This issue, like all marriage contract disputes, belongs with the States.
I am for the overturning of DOMA (Feds don't have the right to say what a marriage is), and the upholding of the California Supreme Court's decision (Prop 8 stands). Then the issue can go back to the voters, where it belongs.
Inga,
Those who whine on North Carolina disability blogs in 2006 about living off the charity of their children, shouldn't throw stones.
I stopped making fun of you because I find you an object to be worth of pity. But pity has its limits.
By the way, this whole notion that something is "inevitable" ...
It seems to me that people who say this are seduced by the idea that SSM is the "grand civil rights battle" of the 21st century. In other words, "GAY IS THE NEW BLACK".
Some people just want to fight those battles over and over again. To the Boomers, every struggle is a Civil Rights Struggle, every pregnancy is a Roe V. Wade struggle, and every journalist article is Woodward/Bernstein Versus The GOP.
Just look at Jesse Jackson's flailing in Detroit -- he's shrieking about how the people trying to save the city are no better than "plantation owners". He just fights the same battle over and over again...
PMJ, as I told you before , you despicable person, I had surgery on my spine, I no longer am disabled by pain, you fucking jerk. I work part time now, I live on my earnings. My home is payed for, I live in a wonderful area in a gorgeous lake property you would be lucky to have.
And PMJ, be careful.
Your threats make you only a further object of pity.
I stopped making fun of you, stopped commenting on any of your posts. You feel the need to address mine for some reason.
If you really think Fatty McDivorced needs you too protect his uneducated little feelings you really need to find another hobby.
But hey, you get to pretend to be a martyr again, which seems to be your favorite hobby of all.
PMJ, I warned you before about your stalkerish behavior. You seriously need to realize you are playing with fire here. Besides my daughter, there are several more REAL attorneys in my family.
Get a real life and quit stalking garage and myself, you have become a laughing stock and object of revulsion here on Althouse.
IF you were a REAL attorney, you would have realized this already without me spelling it out for you, loser.
"Except Scalia-there is not one gay in his entire extended family throught beginning of the first Scalia to the last little Scalia."
Well, durh, he's a bad man who will go in a bad direction. Boo!So there can't be one single gay in his family since a gay is a good person (one dimensional political stick figure) going in a good direction (leftward whore!). Good gay, there's a good gay. Now we're going to throw you a bone!
Wasn't the dyke actually invited by Roberts?
Is this Inga idiot associated with this blog?
Post a Comment