June 28, 2013

"John Roberts’ Openly Gay Cousin Will Now Be Getting Married."

TPM reports.
[Jean] Podrasky says she’s just as surprised that Roberts voted to uphold DOMA, as she is that he sided with the majority in throwing out the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, which had the effect of making gay marriage legal again in California. Roberts’ split means that despite believing the federal government should continue not to recognize same-sex marriages, he helped clear the one obstacle standing in the way of his cousin and her fiancee.

“I want to say I’m from a very, very big family — I have 12 cousins on both sides of the family,” she says. By that measure, even though he has immense power as Chief Justice, Roberts is just on the other side of a family disagreement. “I want to say that quite a bit of my family on that side are quite conservative and pretty Catholic. We have differences of opinions on many many things, but we are still family. He is about 10 years older than me, so we grew up at different times... I tend to see him at family functions. Basically weddings, funerals, celebrations things like that.”
Whether he'll be invited to her wedding is a question she's diplomatic about not answering:
“I actually don’t know,” she told me. “I’m certainly inviting family [but] we don’t have our guests lists yet.”

44 comments:

Mitchell the Bat said...

It would be nice if the Chief Justice gave the happy couple a fancy espresso machine.

Writ Small said...

Roberts’ split means that despite believing the federal government should continue not to recognize same-sex marriages, he helped clear the one obstacle standing in the way of his cousin and her fiancee.

Can I point out the obvious that Roberts believing DOMA should not be struck down actually says zero about his feelings towards the law?

One can be opposed to DOMA and think the rationale for striking it is flawed.

Duh.

Emil Blatz said...

There is the political question of whether you could get a similar 53% support if you ran Prop 8 again, but let's say you did. This time including language granting standing to the proponents of the initiative, if the CA AG fails to defend it on appeal. Why (again, assuming that you get it over he hurdle of 50%+1), wouldn't that work?

Sorun said...

"We have differences of opinions on many many things, but we are still family."

Any family of any size will have disagreements on some very fundamental civil rights issues: gay marriage, gun control, affirmative action, etc. Chasing down a gay cousin for comment is kinda lame.

AprilApple said...

I'd be happy for a parallel universe where Judge Dread put a stop to the dreadful ACA and dropped Doma. But that universe doesn't exist.

"Get used to disappointment."

MadisonMan said...

I hope that if a relative of mine is ever in power in the Government and if that relative makes a controversial decision, and if the press tracks me down and asks for a comment, that I will have the presence of mind to say "Why are you asking me? I have no comment"

If Roberts' cousin actively sought out the press here, shame on her.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Our government is directed by incest and nepotism. This does not bode well for the serfs.

BarrySanders20 said...

Lesbian wedding anecdote time.

I went to a wedding 2 1/2 years ago in Saint Louis for two lesbians. My wife's cousin was one of the ladies. Both ladies were very hot from an objective male perspective.

They are splitsville already. Don't know if they had to divorce or not. Too bad. I liked them both.

It was a very interesting dynamic among the many lesbian attendee friends. There was obvious jealosy from at least one guest, a rather aggressive young lady with a spiked, colorful mohawk who was interestd in the lady my wife's cousin was marrying. She was cute too, except she tried to hard to be the angry bitch, almost like it did not come natural, and the mohawk was a bit much.

I hope the Chief goes to this one. It will expand his horizons.

edutcher said...

Maybe he should have recused himself.

Interesting line:

"Podrasky says she’s just as surprised that Roberts voted to uphold DOMA, as she is that he sided with the majority in throwing out the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, which had the effect of making gay marriage legal again in California."

Well, assuming he isn't being blackmailed or just is seduced by the WaPo's copy, maybe he just can see more than one side of something.

(frankly, I think he was wrong on both)

Emil Blatz said...

There is the political question of whether you could get a similar 53% support if you ran Prop 8 again,

5 will get you 10 many of the people who voted for it have left the Left's latest Third World sewer for TX.

Carol said...

I think it's great that he didn't change his mind to accommodate a family member. That's as it should be, yes? It doesn't make him stiff-necked and dogmatic. He probably will go to the wedding, or send them the fancy espresso machine with a nic note.

harrogate said...

"Maybe he should have recused himself."

Now THAT is funny. And edutcher will nevr, ever know why.

Methadras said...

Writ Small said...

Roberts’ split means that despite believing the federal government should continue not to recognize same-sex marriages, he helped clear the one obstacle standing in the way of his cousin and her fiancee.

Can I point out the obvious that Roberts believing DOMA should not be struck down actually says zero about his feelings towards the law?

One can be opposed to DOMA and think the rationale for striking it is flawed.

Duh.


Oh you mean like how he thought Obamacare is really a tax?

Methadras said...

Writ Small said...

Roberts’ split means that despite believing the federal government should continue not to recognize same-sex marriages, he helped clear the one obstacle standing in the way of his cousin and her fiancee.

Can I point out the obvious that Roberts believing DOMA should not be struck down actually says zero about his feelings towards the law?

One can be opposed to DOMA and think the rationale for striking it is flawed.

Duh.


Oh you mean like how he thought Obamacare is really a tax?

jr565 said...

Judge Roberts might also have a black nephew going to college. Will he be invited to his 18th birthday since he's trying to do awy with racial affirmative action?
It would be AWKWARD.

BarrySanders20 said...

Harro thinks Roberts is on the down low about his gayness. Sorry, not buying that.

Now I am certain that we have had gay justices before. Gay in the orientation sense, not in the joyful sense.

In the recent past/present, Souter, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kennedy are all more far more likely gay than Roberts.

Come on, let's speculate: Gay or not?

EMD said...

I hope that loser doesn't get an invite.

SteveR said...

It would be nice if the Chief Justice gave the happy couple a fancy espresso machine.

I understand you can get a great deal on some top of the line pressure cookers as well.

EMD said...

OT: Our 4th Keurig died this morning.

This sounds like an indictment on Kuerigs, as they don't last ... but we've only ever purchased one machine. Every time we call after the new one stops working, they send another, free of charge.

Maybe they just like the sound of my wife's voice.

Lance said...

12 cousins on each side is a "very, very big family"? Good grief. I've got more cousins than that just on my Dad's side, and five times that many on my Mom's.

EMD said...

12 cousins on each side is a "very, very big family"? Good grief. I've got more cousins than that just on my Dad's side, and five times that many on my Mom's.

Maybe they're just counting first cousins or something.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Lance, I thought that too. My mom has nine siblings and my dad, five. Lost count of the cousins when they all started having babies. Catholics FTW!

Freeman Hunt said...

[Jean] Podrasky says she’s just as surprised that Roberts voted to uphold DOMA, as she is that he sided with the majority in throwing out the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, which had the effect of making gay marriage legal again in California.

I was laughing about this kind of lay commentary the other day with a relative. Both the relative and I support government same sex marriage, but we both thought it was funny to watch people all over the Internet take strong opinions or click "Like" on Supreme Court decisions.

Did everyone else wake up one day knowing all of the minutiae and subtleties of constitutional law? Was there a mass, direct-to-brain information download that I missed?

"Great decision!" or "Terrible decision!" almost always means, "I agree with this political position," but that doesn't make a court decision great or terrible. That's almost always a very complicated matter of law.

Dante said...

Now we can all look forward to a skewed sampling of sympathetic gay marriages. I don't intend to read them, as that's not the point.

Windsor knew what the point was:

Two years later, Spyer was dead, leaving Windsor with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill that would not have been levied if Thea had been Theo.

In my view, there is little doubt this is about money, and in particular money for largely able bodied people that didn't expend the energy to reproduce the next generation. Now, these people are special.

It would be interesting to see a balanced review of gay marriages, and how many of them end up being entirely for financial gain.

Dante said...

"Great decision!" or "Terrible decision!" almost always means, "I agree with this political position," but that doesn't make a court decision great or terrible. That's almost always a very complicated matter of law.

Imagine if this same case had been brought to the supreme court 100 years ago. Would the results have been the same? The law hasn't changed, so what did?

Freeman Hunt said...

Imagine if this same case had been brought to the supreme court 100 years ago. Would the results have been the same? The law hasn't changed, so what did?

The law has changed dramatically, hasn't it? What about all of the added precedent?

Trashhauler said...

Catholics have a tough time with gayness. Under our teaching, the practice of it is a sin; on the other hand, it is a seemingly natural occurrence, or so we are told. Sin - and forgiveness - are supposed to be between the sinner and God. We aren't supposed to judge others, because we cannot be certain about the state of their souls.

This requirement to refuse to judge - at least with certainty - allows us to treat with the supposed sinners in normal situations as if nothing interferes at all.

This ties in with the belief that, while salvation is not guaranteed, it can always be attained - that the sinner may repent and be saved. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to ever declare a known sinner as hopelessly lost. We believe that God put us in charge of our souls. He did not create Man to be ruled only by genetics or animal impulse.

One can see how such beliefs make dealing with gays - or other supposedly unchangeable types, such as sexual predators - more complicated than some would demand of us.

Unknown said...

Freeman Hunt wrote:

""Great decision!" or "Terrible decision!" almost always means, "I agree with this political position," but that doesn't make a court decision great or terrible. That's almost always a very complicated matter of law."

I'd like to think this is true but it's probably not. The sad fact is that, without knowing anything about the subtleties of the law, we can predict how 8 out of 9 of the justices will vote on any issue that is enough of a social hot button to get talked about on facebook. It would be interesting if justices on both sides more often found that the legal arguments backed them into a corner that they politically opposed. But it never seems to happen.

Kensington said...

Roberts is Catholic, isn't he? If he is, and if he's at all faithful to the catechism, he really can't in good conscience attend a lesbian wedding.

Revenant said...

Imagine if this same case had been brought to the supreme court 100 years ago.

If it had been brought to the Supreme Court 100 years ago they would have said "blacks, Jews, and women aren't even entitled to full rights, so it goes without saying that sodomites aren't".

The law doesn't change, but the ability of people to rationalize their bigotry within the law does.

Marshal said...

Unknown said...
It would be interesting if justices on both sides more often found that the legal arguments backed them into a corner that they politically opposed. But it never seems to happen.


I think this is partially wrong. Thomas and Scalia in particular often side left out of position (meaning with someone nominally more moderate or left siding with with the right bloc). What you hardly ever see is the reverse.

Revenant said...

In my view, there is little doubt this is about money, and in particular money for largely able bodied people that didn't expend the energy to reproduce the next generation.

Can I get a refund on the money I'm spending to educate other peoples' children and provide them medical coverage?

If I'm going to have to listen to all this whining about how I'm not doing my part for the next generation, I'd like the money I've spent on the next generation back. :)

Marshal said...

Revenant said...
Can I get a refund on the money I'm spending to educate other peoples' children and provide them medical coverage?


Sure, if in return you receive no social security and buy no goods after you retire.

Revenant said...

Sure, if in return you receive no social security and buy no goods after you retire.

Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt well before I retire.

The second part's even sillier. What exactly are your kids planning to do for a living if nobody older than them buys anything they produce? Also, is "you have to give my kids money now so you can give them money later" actually the argument you're doing for here? :)

Marshal said...

Revenant said...

The second part's even sillier. What exactly are your kids planning to do for a living if nobody older than them buys anything they produce?


You have a really hard time stepping out of your own viewpoint to understand anyone elses.

My children don't need you, they have billions of other people who are fine with living in a world with children. On the other hand you claim you can live without anyone else's children just fine. So exactly who is going to produce the things you want to buy in your retirement?

Dante said...

If it had been brought to the Supreme Court 100 years ago they would have said "blacks, Jews, and women aren't even entitled to full rights, so it goes without saying that sodomites aren't".

Not blacks or Jews, as Equal Protection under the Laws was already a part of the constitution.

I can't recall when Women's suffrage passed, but it was around that time, and it was a very serious issue at the time.

I think what people would have said is "Why do gays want to marry? They don't have children." Some people might say that today, as well, you know.

Revenant said...

You have a really hard time stepping out of your own viewpoint to understand anyone elses.

That's a pretty hilarious accusation, given that I'm responding to a person who thinks non-breeders are a drag on society. :)

My children don't need you

And nobody but you needs your kids. Hell, everyone in America could quit breeding tomorrow; I'd just buy my denture cream from the Canadians.

Somebody has to have kids, sure. But we're well-covered in that regard, so acting like you're doing me a favor by breeding is pretty dumb.

Revenant said...

Not blacks or Jews, as Equal Protection under the Laws was already a part of the constitution.

Just as today you say "equal protection doesn't mean we can't ban gays from marrying", the courts then said "equal protection doesn't mean we can't ban blacks and whites from marrying". Or black people from attending white schools, etc etc.

The law didn't change. The percentage of Americans who were bigoted enough to willingly distort the law did.

Dante said...

Somebody has to have kids, sure. But we're well-covered in that regard, so acting like you're doing me a favor by breeding is pretty dumb.

You think the illegals coming in from South of the border are doing to build the internet you use? You think they are going to build the formula for your denture cream, the drugs you will need, become the doctors you need?

The imports are a net negative on the treasury. You think it's necessary to pull in more net negatives on the treasury to ensure you can buy Denture cream from Canada?

That's the primary demographic with a positive fertility rate. Perhaps you had some other demographic in mind, that's going to make your Aspercreme or you.

Revenant said...

I think what people would have said is "Why do gays want to marry? They don't have children."

Well sure. There were dumb people living in 1913, too. *Somebody* voted for Woodrow Wilson. :)

But even in 1913, the idea that "pumping out a bunch of kids" was the only legitimate reason to marry would have been laughed at.

Revenant said...

You think the illegals coming in from South of the border are doing to build the internet you use? You think they are going to build the formula for your denture cream, the drugs you will need, become the doctors you need?

Because those are the only two classes of people in the world: illegal immigrants, and your children.

Marshal said...

Revenant said...
You have a really hard time stepping out of your own viewpoint to understand anyone elses.

That's a pretty hilarious accusation, given that I'm responding to a person who thinks non-breeders are a drag on society.


I now see why you have so much trouble understanding others. You intentionally misread others beliefs so you don't have to engage them.

Trashhauler said...

I thought I posted this earlier. Guess I was wrong.

Catholics have a specific advantage in dealing with gays. Good Catholics are not supposed to judge the state of a person's soul. The knowledge of sin - and of forgiveness - is between the sinner and God. Further, just as salvation is uncertain, it is possible for a sinner to obtain salvation, even at the time of death. This belief, when properly followed, allows Catholics to interact with gays as if nothing stands between them. Many Catholic families experience this.

On the other hand, Catholics also believe that a person is likewise responsible for the state of his soul. We do not believe that God created Man to be guided only by genetics or animal instincts, but also by reason and faith.

Since no one can be considered irretrievably bad, we should not treat them as such. Chief Justice Roberts should have no problem with his cousin.

yankeefrost said...

Why is it that the more equality reigns the more relevant family connections become? Ban condoms, and watch the lols flourish.