Joe My God blog articles and comments

  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



New Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm  ProbioSlim 




Sean's Secret Muscle Combo Packs On Lean Muscle in Record Time  Easy Bulk Muscle 




Miley Cyrus And The NYC Porn Film Festival  KUPDATES 




11 Child Stars Who Went From Adorable to Atrocious  Answers.com 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Early Reports As Hearings Conclude   119 comments 


 Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS   37 comments 


 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   198 comments 






 118 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




i pledge to sign no pledges
 
Thumbnail
 
36 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Octavio > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




You've got my seven or eight votes.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Happy Dance > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




My 30 dead grandmothers vote for yoU!
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




Can I have a pony too? and Vodka? Really good vodka?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Joseph Miceli  • 5 hours ago 




Who is this asshole to decide what natural marriage is? His pledge is a call to commit treason against the United States government. His is a call to sedition. A little jail time would be good for his martyr complex.
The best part, though, is that his "call" is all damage control. He expects to lose.
 
36 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > Joseph Miceli  • 4 hours ago 




Yup, I'm very much married, and it feels quite natural to me... Actually, maybe I have a Supernatural Marriage!!!!!!
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TrueWords  • 5 hours ago 




a word of advice for Mr. Staver...

  
Thumbnail
 
22 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bill T.  • 4 hours ago 




Oh good. We can disobey Citizens United and Hobby Lobby too then.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
sherman  • 5 hours ago 




"allow the Supreme Court to collide with religious freedom"
Once again selfishness, the core value of the right wing, is on display. They don't care about the religious freedom of churches that embrace marriage equality, they just want to impose their definition on everyone.
Unamerican.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




A really confident candidate would NOT sign this pledge, as they would believe that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the christianist rabble, thereby making the pledge unnecessary.
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




Look on the bright side; The longer "teh gehey's" issue is on the table the more the GOP'ers alienate themselves from younger voters.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bill > barracks9  • 4 hours ago 




OH PLEASE PLEASE ........have the Repulikkkan Presidential Candidates sign the pledge ASAP.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 5 hours ago 




So Huckabee and Santorum have explicitly demonstrated themselves to be unfit for the Presidency. Good to know.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
sherman > KnownDonorDad  • 4 hours ago 




Oh dear, if being "fit for the Presidency" was a criterion, Republicons would not have any candidates.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > sherman  • 3 hours ago 




Huntsman would be able to run, at least.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joseph Miceli > Todd20036  • an hour ago 




1 guy walking behind the clown car with a tiny broom, trying to pick up the litter thrown out the window. Poor Huntsman.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > KnownDonorDad  • 4 hours ago 




Yes, but we didn't need this blog post to know that.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joseph Miceli > KnownDonorDad  • an hour ago 




You mean "more unfit."
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
clay > KnownDonorDad  • an hour ago 




and Piyush is going to be ever so unhappy that Santorum got his name on the pledge first.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BlueberriesForMe > KnownDonorDad  • an hour ago 




It was always that way but for whatever history is to be written, the historians can just add it to the footnotes.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
oikos  • 5 hours ago 




If you're going to win why the pledge? If not, why is your gawd so impotent that he can't influence SCOTUS? Please sign pledges as this will be a winning issue for you come 2016. /S
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike in Texas  • 4 hours ago 




I don't want to watch that video, but I'm curious to know how presidential candidates can disobey a SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality, particularly since such a ruling would not order them to do anything at all.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > Mike in Texas  • 3 hours ago 




Basically, said candidates would introduce and sign laws that would do nothing more than make it extremely difficult for gay people in red states to marry
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
William > Mike in Texas  • 3 hours ago 




They can kick and scream.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GayOldLady  • 5 hours ago 




"Huckabee and Santorum have already signed."
Of course they have!!
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Secure > GayOldLady  • 4 hours ago 




Huckarum!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus > Secure  • 2 hours ago 




Santuckabee!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
clay > chicago dyke, bacon, fungus  • an hour ago 




Satan bee?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
BobSF_94117 > GayOldLady  • 4 hours ago 




Can't deny they make a perfect couple, at least in the they-deserve-each-other sort of way.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > BobSF_94117  • 2 hours ago 




They're very well matched, what with the one's pencil dick and other's tightly clenched butthole.
Which is which? How do I know? I'm not saying.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
h8nsbad  • 5 hours ago 




I think that may conflict a wee bit with the oath of office. Maybe they should just drop out now...
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > h8nsbad  • 3 hours ago 




I honestly don't expect anyone the GOP runs to be particularly worked up about keeping the Oath of Office. It's a nice fantasy, but it's simply not going to be on their radar.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




Now is the time for both Santorum and Huckabee to be had up on charges of sedition. Staver on the charges of aiding and abetting same.
Sooner or later the gubbmint is going to have to step on these seditionists, and it may already be too late, but I'd love to see the startled looks on those three faces when the FBI hauls them away.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader  • 5 hours ago 




of course Frothy and Fuxabee signed it. and neither is a candidate yet, and unlikely to be so.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > TrollopeReader  • 4 hours ago 




and unlikely to win if they do declare, but I suspect Cruz would sign this, and he's considered top tier. For what that's worth
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > Todd20036  • 3 hours ago 




And Jindal will line up for the chance to kiss Stavers ass.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bkmn  • 4 hours ago 




You must conform or you will be shot. Who does that remind me of?
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > bkmn  • 3 hours ago 




Um…the Borg?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TampaDink  • 5 hours ago 




Disobey what?
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > TampaDink  • 5 hours ago 




The order they must get gay-married immediately!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TampaDink > Gustav2  • 5 hours ago 




Ah. In that case, I support their disobedience.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > TampaDink  • 3 hours ago 




Here is a REAL tragedy in Ohio! ;-)
15 semi trucks worth!
http://www.dispatch.com/conten...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
ben  • 5 hours ago 




Somewhat OT, but is this brian brown?
  
Thumbnail
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > ben  • 5 hours ago 




Wow, he is really looking like shit (worse than usual). Hate really ages one.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > oikos  • 5 hours ago 




The digging your own grave with a knife and fork doesn't help matters, either.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
carrot festival > oikos  • 5 hours ago 




Hate along with a steady diet of high calorie grifting.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > carrot festival  • 4 hours ago 




He's also regularly invited to what often turns out to be some very filling meals at Ian Reisner and Matt Weiderpass' house.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > ben  • 4 hours ago 





  
Thumbnail
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > ben  • 4 hours ago 




It's that, or…
 
Thumbnail
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich > ben  • 5 hours ago 




i suspect we see more of him than his kids do
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




Yes, but that may be due to a court order.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
m_lp_ql_m > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




I suspect we see more of him than before, and I mean in terms of mass and the spacial dimensions.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




Well, there's a silver cloud to every lining, eh?
Maybe they have a chance of growing up decent human beings.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Tom G > ben  • 5 hours ago 




Think that's Chris Farley....
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Tom G  • 4 hours ago 




Ahhhh you beat me to it.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
delk > ben  • 5 hours ago 




There are hispanic signs written in Spanish around him, so yes, it is Brian.
edited to make correct sense
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > delk  • 4 hours ago 




Signs can't have an ethnicity. They're written in Spanish so they're Spanish. Not hispanic or Latino or Puerto Rican or Mexican.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Reality.Bites  • 2 hours ago 




Reality, my charming little chickadee, my living hot fudge sundae, are you aware that every Spanish-speaking country in South and Central America has a distinct dialect?
Given the realities, that sign is probably in some Central American dialect, most likely Mexican but not necessarily.
Here, have a cherry.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk > Reality.Bites  • 4 hours ago 




Thank you. I have a lot of things on my mind right now. Generally I try my best to think before I write and pause before I post.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Octavio > Reality.Bites  • 4 hours ago 




Sí, es la verdad.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bill@19D > ben  • 4 hours ago 




Glad someone grabbed a picture, I was looking for him on the C-Span coverage but they never showed him, which isn’t surprising given he was just 1 of a long line up of anti-gays giving short speeches.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
D. J.  • 4 hours ago 




As an "attorney" he is an officer of the court. Calling for disobeying the SCOTUS he should at least be disbarred.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > D. J.  • 2 hours ago 




Notify the bar association he's under.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Octavio  • 4 hours ago 




"We, your alien lizard overlords, demand you sign this pledge. If you fail to comply we will ensure your children are eaten first. You must comply. You must comply. You must comply. If you don't comply, you will die. That is all."
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David L. Caster  • 5 hours ago 




Thank you, Mat. Please continue to drag down and crush the hopes of any social conservative that thinks he or she can win the 2016 nomination for POTUS.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




Why would your side need to do that if this is a sure win?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Staver falls into the anti-gay group that is willing to
admit that they are probably going to lose at this point it’s mainly just the NOM et al group that is insistent that they will win right up to the bitter end.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Roger Mann  • 3 hours ago 




Seems to me that Staver is attempting to violate the US Constitution's provision that no religious test may be required for office under the United States.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
William > Roger Mann  • 3 hours ago 




Test the rethuglicans to see if they float.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
tom_beauchamparnold > William  • 2 hours ago 




Well, we know their heads are made of wood.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Marides48  • 3 hours ago 




Might as well get Bugs Bunny to sign that pledge.After all he has a better chance of being President that those to losers!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Marides48  • 3 hours ago 




But Bugs would never run as a Republican!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Tom G  • 5 hours ago 




Please God make this happen! I want all candidates to make their position clear. They were gonna hide in the shadows after the SCOTUS ruling and never have to answer to their bigotry.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rambie  • 5 hours ago 




Let's hope they are right. "...the algorithm foresees a 7-2 reversal on both questions. The crowd foresees 5-4 and 6-3 reversals on the marriage and recognition questions, respectively. Either set of outcomes would be a triumph for same-sex marriage proponents."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Rambie  • 3 hours ago 




I'm honestly expecting that 7-2, though there might be a majority and a concurrence, so Alito doesn't have to completely agree with the liberals.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Rambie  • 4 hours ago 




Sounds about right, interesting to hear fivethirtyeight weigh in on this.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
twb6yz  • 2 hours ago 




So much for that inaugural pledge to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Toasterlad  • 3 hours ago 




Wow, we're getting presidential candidates to swear to break the law, now? America turned into a third world country so gradually, I didn't even notice.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Chuck Anziulewicz  • 5 hours ago 




Freep this poll, if you haven't yet done so:
http://www.nj.com/politics/ind...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TampaDink > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 4 hours ago 




Yes. 73.45% (1,176 votes)
No. 25.17% (403 votes)
I don't know. 1.37% (22 votes)
Total Votes: 1,601
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
sherman > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 4 hours ago 




Thanks. We were way ahead when I voted.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Patrick  • 5 hours ago 




All Candidates have to come by and kiss my ass!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
kanehau  • 4 hours ago 




I pledge to shove the pen up your...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > kanehau  • 4 hours ago 




don't poke the Q-Tip!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MarkOH  • 4 hours ago 




What a treasonous turd. But, have hope, Mat dear. If the SCOTUS rules in your favor, NONE of the GOP Pres candidates will stand a chance. And the Senate and possibly House, will flip to the Dems. A decision like that would fire up a LOT of people.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > MarkOH  • 3 hours ago 




Point of order. That would be "seditious turd."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics  • 4 hours ago 




Know what I look for in a candidate who would have to take an oath ON A BIBLE to uphold the US Constitution? A professed willingness to completely disregard the constitution.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Roger Mann > VodkaAndPolitics  • 3 hours ago 




What was that line, "You swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. You did not swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible."
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
another_steve  • 5 hours ago 




Here are three things I'd rather do than watch any part of that video:
(1) Drink bleach;
(2) Scrape up, with my tongue, the excrement that the black rat snakes have left on my basement floor (I live in the woods and have a very porous basement); and
(3) Go to the cemetery, exhume my mother's body and stuff a turkey with the remains.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd E.  • 5 hours ago 




"Oh yeah -- that's the one who signed that pledge-thing! I think I'll vote for him!"
Said no one....EVER.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jim  • 3 hours ago 




By all means let us encourage Republican candidates to swear that even before they take the oath of office they intend to violate it. That will persuade people to vote for them. Not.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis  • 3 hours ago 




Best outcome of this is that the unelectable mass of clown car wannabes sign such a thing, and enough of the Tea Party tries to weaponize the non-signing against the potentially electable ones to drag them down into GOP distaste.
The Democrats have plenty to run on, but if we can keep the GOP infighting among themselves, running against each other as "more conservative than thou" it can all be used against the survivors in the general election.
So, yay, Matt! Go to town!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
kaydenpat  • 4 hours ago 




Listening to SCOTUS oral argument on C-SPAN. Seems like Kennedy is on the pro-SSM side. Alito, Roberts, and Scalia, of course, are vocally anti-SSM (or so it seems given their questions and comments).
I guess Staver is going to need that pledge.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > kaydenpat  • 3 hours ago 




Don't count Roberts out.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 4 hours ago 




figures THEY would be the first to sign. what, no cruz or paul?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > anne marie in philly  • 3 hours ago 




Yet.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
delk  • 4 hours ago 




Ha! The 'key signers' of the pledge are hateful bigots with their official titles of bigotry. They have co-founders, drafters, authors, presidents, executive directors, and pastors of various hate groups.
If you are into hateful bigotry, this is a wet dream.
And then there is Bob Jim & Michelle Duggar and their impressive title: Parents of 19 Kids and Counting.
http://defendmarriage.org/sign...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
2amor > delk  • 4 hours ago 




Alveda King, MLK would be so proud.......
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
pickypecker  • 5 hours ago 




one word: idiots.
  
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




[finger problem]
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Happy Dance  • 3 hours ago 




Of course Fuckabee and Stainscrotum signed it!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
franklinb23  • 3 hours ago 




It pains me to say this, but I listened to both sides, and I fear the marriage equality team did not present its case as well as the other side did from a technical and legal perspective. On the anti-side, John J Bursch was well-organized, coherent and answered the Court's challenges and questions.
It's ironic, because the gay marriage foes outside the court came off like a bunch of loons.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
acr > franklinb23  • 2 hours ago 




The truth of the matter is that the presentation of the case probably has little to no effect on the Judge's vote. They most likely already know how they will vote before this occurs.
Their questions are really for the public at large.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader > franklinb23  • 3 hours ago 




Reading the transcript on marriage and children, it sounded like Bursch was inept, stammering, (the justices were talking over each other to hammer him), and the justices made mince-meat of his arguments.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bj Lincoln  • 4 hours ago 




Resistance is futile!
Riiiiiight!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 4 hours ago 




Not going to happen, the religious right candidates will sign on but the other candidates wont and honestly not doing so isn’t going to hurt them at this point. Mat Staver can huff and puff all he wants but many candidates will be looking to avoid this as much as possible.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Schlukitz  • 4 hours ago 




NewsMax.
Another fine example of balanced news reporting. NOT!
We now have an alternative to watching Fox News.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cyril  • 34 minutes ago 




Give it up already, the ship is sinking and the coast guard is nowhere in sight.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
chrisjames147  • 2 hours ago 




Not that Huckabee or Santorum had a ghost of a chance to get elected they just killed that completely. Imagine a president that won't listen to the courts, that person wouldn't last one term. Thanks Matty Boy, let's knock the lunatics off early.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rich  • 2 hours ago 




I'm not going to listen to this asshole, but I'm not surprised that Huckabee and Santorum signed the pledge.
Actually this is encouraging if Staver thinks they lost. I was rather discouraged by some of the questions I read from Breyer and Kennedy.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jeffrey Samuels  • 2 hours ago 




does this mean that they are not going to marry someone of the same gender?
I am so relieved!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RickinMA  • 3 hours ago 




If these signers disobey SCOTUS. Can we arrest them? Would they become martyrs like the radical Muslims? America is that close people.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
NowAnAgnostic  • 3 hours ago 




Hosted by J. D. Hayworth, former repugnican AZ Congressman and windbag.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gordon.  • 3 hours ago 




This is so fucking stupid. Exactly HOW are you going to "disobey SCOTUS" should they rule that same sex marriage is legal ? HOW ?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mark > Gordon.  • 2 hours ago 




Stamp their lil feet and throw a temper tantrum. These people have no concept of the 3 branches of government - fuck….
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MBear > Gordon.  • 3 hours ago 




they won't get gay married...?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




[finger problem]
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




[finger problem]
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/mat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html#disqus_thread











  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



New Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm  ProbioSlim 




Sean's Secret Muscle Combo Packs On Lean Muscle in Record Time  Easy Bulk Muscle 




Miley Cyrus And The NYC Porn Film Festival  KUPDATES 




11 Child Stars Who Went From Adorable to Atrocious  Answers.com 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Early Reports As Hearings Conclude   119 comments 


 Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS   37 comments 


 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   198 comments 






 118 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




i pledge to sign no pledges
 
Thumbnail
 
36 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Octavio > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




You've got my seven or eight votes.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Happy Dance > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




My 30 dead grandmothers vote for yoU!
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




Can I have a pony too? and Vodka? Really good vodka?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Joseph Miceli  • 5 hours ago 




Who is this asshole to decide what natural marriage is? His pledge is a call to commit treason against the United States government. His is a call to sedition. A little jail time would be good for his martyr complex.
The best part, though, is that his "call" is all damage control. He expects to lose.
 
36 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > Joseph Miceli  • 4 hours ago 




Yup, I'm very much married, and it feels quite natural to me... Actually, maybe I have a Supernatural Marriage!!!!!!
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TrueWords  • 5 hours ago 




a word of advice for Mr. Staver...

  
Thumbnail
 
22 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bill T.  • 4 hours ago 




Oh good. We can disobey Citizens United and Hobby Lobby too then.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
sherman  • 5 hours ago 




"allow the Supreme Court to collide with religious freedom"
Once again selfishness, the core value of the right wing, is on display. They don't care about the religious freedom of churches that embrace marriage equality, they just want to impose their definition on everyone.
Unamerican.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




A really confident candidate would NOT sign this pledge, as they would believe that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the christianist rabble, thereby making the pledge unnecessary.
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




Look on the bright side; The longer "teh gehey's" issue is on the table the more the GOP'ers alienate themselves from younger voters.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bill > barracks9  • 4 hours ago 




OH PLEASE PLEASE ........have the Repulikkkan Presidential Candidates sign the pledge ASAP.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 5 hours ago 




So Huckabee and Santorum have explicitly demonstrated themselves to be unfit for the Presidency. Good to know.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
sherman > KnownDonorDad  • 4 hours ago 




Oh dear, if being "fit for the Presidency" was a criterion, Republicons would not have any candidates.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > sherman  • 3 hours ago 




Huntsman would be able to run, at least.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joseph Miceli > Todd20036  • an hour ago 




1 guy walking behind the clown car with a tiny broom, trying to pick up the litter thrown out the window. Poor Huntsman.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > KnownDonorDad  • 4 hours ago 




Yes, but we didn't need this blog post to know that.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joseph Miceli > KnownDonorDad  • an hour ago 




You mean "more unfit."
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
clay > KnownDonorDad  • an hour ago 




and Piyush is going to be ever so unhappy that Santorum got his name on the pledge first.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BlueberriesForMe > KnownDonorDad  • an hour ago 




It was always that way but for whatever history is to be written, the historians can just add it to the footnotes.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
oikos  • 5 hours ago 




If you're going to win why the pledge? If not, why is your gawd so impotent that he can't influence SCOTUS? Please sign pledges as this will be a winning issue for you come 2016. /S
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike in Texas  • 4 hours ago 




I don't want to watch that video, but I'm curious to know how presidential candidates can disobey a SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality, particularly since such a ruling would not order them to do anything at all.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > Mike in Texas  • 3 hours ago 




Basically, said candidates would introduce and sign laws that would do nothing more than make it extremely difficult for gay people in red states to marry
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
William > Mike in Texas  • 3 hours ago 




They can kick and scream.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GayOldLady  • 5 hours ago 




"Huckabee and Santorum have already signed."
Of course they have!!
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Secure > GayOldLady  • 4 hours ago 




Huckarum!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus > Secure  • 2 hours ago 




Santuckabee!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
clay > chicago dyke, bacon, fungus  • an hour ago 




Satan bee?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
BobSF_94117 > GayOldLady  • 4 hours ago 




Can't deny they make a perfect couple, at least in the they-deserve-each-other sort of way.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > BobSF_94117  • 2 hours ago 




They're very well matched, what with the one's pencil dick and other's tightly clenched butthole.
Which is which? How do I know? I'm not saying.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
h8nsbad  • 5 hours ago 




I think that may conflict a wee bit with the oath of office. Maybe they should just drop out now...
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > h8nsbad  • 3 hours ago 




I honestly don't expect anyone the GOP runs to be particularly worked up about keeping the Oath of Office. It's a nice fantasy, but it's simply not going to be on their radar.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




Now is the time for both Santorum and Huckabee to be had up on charges of sedition. Staver on the charges of aiding and abetting same.
Sooner or later the gubbmint is going to have to step on these seditionists, and it may already be too late, but I'd love to see the startled looks on those three faces when the FBI hauls them away.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader  • 5 hours ago 




of course Frothy and Fuxabee signed it. and neither is a candidate yet, and unlikely to be so.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > TrollopeReader  • 4 hours ago 




and unlikely to win if they do declare, but I suspect Cruz would sign this, and he's considered top tier. For what that's worth
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > Todd20036  • 3 hours ago 




And Jindal will line up for the chance to kiss Stavers ass.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bkmn  • 4 hours ago 




You must conform or you will be shot. Who does that remind me of?
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > bkmn  • 3 hours ago 




Um…the Borg?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TampaDink  • 5 hours ago 




Disobey what?
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > TampaDink  • 5 hours ago 




The order they must get gay-married immediately!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TampaDink > Gustav2  • 5 hours ago 




Ah. In that case, I support their disobedience.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > TampaDink  • 3 hours ago 




Here is a REAL tragedy in Ohio! ;-)
15 semi trucks worth!
http://www.dispatch.com/conten...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
ben  • 5 hours ago 




Somewhat OT, but is this brian brown?
  
Thumbnail
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > ben  • 5 hours ago 




Wow, he is really looking like shit (worse than usual). Hate really ages one.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > oikos  • 5 hours ago 




The digging your own grave with a knife and fork doesn't help matters, either.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
carrot festival > oikos  • 5 hours ago 




Hate along with a steady diet of high calorie grifting.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > carrot festival  • 4 hours ago 




He's also regularly invited to what often turns out to be some very filling meals at Ian Reisner and Matt Weiderpass' house.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > ben  • 4 hours ago 





  
Thumbnail
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > ben  • 4 hours ago 




It's that, or…
 
Thumbnail
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich > ben  • 5 hours ago 




i suspect we see more of him than his kids do
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




Yes, but that may be due to a court order.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
m_lp_ql_m > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




I suspect we see more of him than before, and I mean in terms of mass and the spacial dimensions.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




Well, there's a silver cloud to every lining, eh?
Maybe they have a chance of growing up decent human beings.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Tom G > ben  • 5 hours ago 




Think that's Chris Farley....
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Tom G  • 4 hours ago 




Ahhhh you beat me to it.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
delk > ben  • 5 hours ago 




There are hispanic signs written in Spanish around him, so yes, it is Brian.
edited to make correct sense
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > delk  • 4 hours ago 




Signs can't have an ethnicity. They're written in Spanish so they're Spanish. Not hispanic or Latino or Puerto Rican or Mexican.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Reality.Bites  • 2 hours ago 




Reality, my charming little chickadee, my living hot fudge sundae, are you aware that every Spanish-speaking country in South and Central America has a distinct dialect?
Given the realities, that sign is probably in some Central American dialect, most likely Mexican but not necessarily.
Here, have a cherry.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk > Reality.Bites  • 4 hours ago 




Thank you. I have a lot of things on my mind right now. Generally I try my best to think before I write and pause before I post.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Octavio > Reality.Bites  • 4 hours ago 




Sí, es la verdad.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bill@19D > ben  • 4 hours ago 




Glad someone grabbed a picture, I was looking for him on the C-Span coverage but they never showed him, which isn’t surprising given he was just 1 of a long line up of anti-gays giving short speeches.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
D. J.  • 4 hours ago 




As an "attorney" he is an officer of the court. Calling for disobeying the SCOTUS he should at least be disbarred.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > D. J.  • 2 hours ago 




Notify the bar association he's under.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Octavio  • 4 hours ago 




"We, your alien lizard overlords, demand you sign this pledge. If you fail to comply we will ensure your children are eaten first. You must comply. You must comply. You must comply. If you don't comply, you will die. That is all."
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David L. Caster  • 5 hours ago 




Thank you, Mat. Please continue to drag down and crush the hopes of any social conservative that thinks he or she can win the 2016 nomination for POTUS.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




Why would your side need to do that if this is a sure win?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Staver falls into the anti-gay group that is willing to
admit that they are probably going to lose at this point it’s mainly just the NOM et al group that is insistent that they will win right up to the bitter end.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Roger Mann  • 3 hours ago 




Seems to me that Staver is attempting to violate the US Constitution's provision that no religious test may be required for office under the United States.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
William > Roger Mann  • 3 hours ago 




Test the rethuglicans to see if they float.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
tom_beauchamparnold > William  • 2 hours ago 




Well, we know their heads are made of wood.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Marides48  • 3 hours ago 




Might as well get Bugs Bunny to sign that pledge.After all he has a better chance of being President that those to losers!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Marides48  • 3 hours ago 




But Bugs would never run as a Republican!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Tom G  • 5 hours ago 




Please God make this happen! I want all candidates to make their position clear. They were gonna hide in the shadows after the SCOTUS ruling and never have to answer to their bigotry.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rambie  • 5 hours ago 




Let's hope they are right. "...the algorithm foresees a 7-2 reversal on both questions. The crowd foresees 5-4 and 6-3 reversals on the marriage and recognition questions, respectively. Either set of outcomes would be a triumph for same-sex marriage proponents."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Rambie  • 3 hours ago 




I'm honestly expecting that 7-2, though there might be a majority and a concurrence, so Alito doesn't have to completely agree with the liberals.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Rambie  • 4 hours ago 




Sounds about right, interesting to hear fivethirtyeight weigh in on this.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
twb6yz  • 2 hours ago 




So much for that inaugural pledge to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Toasterlad  • 3 hours ago 




Wow, we're getting presidential candidates to swear to break the law, now? America turned into a third world country so gradually, I didn't even notice.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Chuck Anziulewicz  • 5 hours ago 




Freep this poll, if you haven't yet done so:
http://www.nj.com/politics/ind...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TampaDink > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 4 hours ago 




Yes. 73.45% (1,176 votes)
No. 25.17% (403 votes)
I don't know. 1.37% (22 votes)
Total Votes: 1,601
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
sherman > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 4 hours ago 




Thanks. We were way ahead when I voted.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Patrick  • 5 hours ago 




All Candidates have to come by and kiss my ass!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
kanehau  • 4 hours ago 




I pledge to shove the pen up your...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > kanehau  • 4 hours ago 




don't poke the Q-Tip!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MarkOH  • 4 hours ago 




What a treasonous turd. But, have hope, Mat dear. If the SCOTUS rules in your favor, NONE of the GOP Pres candidates will stand a chance. And the Senate and possibly House, will flip to the Dems. A decision like that would fire up a LOT of people.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > MarkOH  • 3 hours ago 




Point of order. That would be "seditious turd."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics  • 4 hours ago 




Know what I look for in a candidate who would have to take an oath ON A BIBLE to uphold the US Constitution? A professed willingness to completely disregard the constitution.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Roger Mann > VodkaAndPolitics  • 3 hours ago 




What was that line, "You swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. You did not swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible."
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
another_steve  • 5 hours ago 




Here are three things I'd rather do than watch any part of that video:
(1) Drink bleach;
(2) Scrape up, with my tongue, the excrement that the black rat snakes have left on my basement floor (I live in the woods and have a very porous basement); and
(3) Go to the cemetery, exhume my mother's body and stuff a turkey with the remains.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd E.  • 5 hours ago 




"Oh yeah -- that's the one who signed that pledge-thing! I think I'll vote for him!"
Said no one....EVER.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jim  • 3 hours ago 




By all means let us encourage Republican candidates to swear that even before they take the oath of office they intend to violate it. That will persuade people to vote for them. Not.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis  • 3 hours ago 




Best outcome of this is that the unelectable mass of clown car wannabes sign such a thing, and enough of the Tea Party tries to weaponize the non-signing against the potentially electable ones to drag them down into GOP distaste.
The Democrats have plenty to run on, but if we can keep the GOP infighting among themselves, running against each other as "more conservative than thou" it can all be used against the survivors in the general election.
So, yay, Matt! Go to town!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
kaydenpat  • 4 hours ago 




Listening to SCOTUS oral argument on C-SPAN. Seems like Kennedy is on the pro-SSM side. Alito, Roberts, and Scalia, of course, are vocally anti-SSM (or so it seems given their questions and comments).
I guess Staver is going to need that pledge.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > kaydenpat  • 3 hours ago 




Don't count Roberts out.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 4 hours ago 




figures THEY would be the first to sign. what, no cruz or paul?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > anne marie in philly  • 3 hours ago 




Yet.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
delk  • 4 hours ago 




Ha! The 'key signers' of the pledge are hateful bigots with their official titles of bigotry. They have co-founders, drafters, authors, presidents, executive directors, and pastors of various hate groups.
If you are into hateful bigotry, this is a wet dream.
And then there is Bob Jim & Michelle Duggar and their impressive title: Parents of 19 Kids and Counting.
http://defendmarriage.org/sign...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
2amor > delk  • 4 hours ago 




Alveda King, MLK would be so proud.......
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
pickypecker  • 5 hours ago 




one word: idiots.
  
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




[finger problem]
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Happy Dance  • 3 hours ago 




Of course Fuckabee and Stainscrotum signed it!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
franklinb23  • 3 hours ago 




It pains me to say this, but I listened to both sides, and I fear the marriage equality team did not present its case as well as the other side did from a technical and legal perspective. On the anti-side, John J Bursch was well-organized, coherent and answered the Court's challenges and questions.
It's ironic, because the gay marriage foes outside the court came off like a bunch of loons.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
acr > franklinb23  • 2 hours ago 




The truth of the matter is that the presentation of the case probably has little to no effect on the Judge's vote. They most likely already know how they will vote before this occurs.
Their questions are really for the public at large.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader > franklinb23  • 3 hours ago 




Reading the transcript on marriage and children, it sounded like Bursch was inept, stammering, (the justices were talking over each other to hammer him), and the justices made mince-meat of his arguments.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bj Lincoln  • 4 hours ago 




Resistance is futile!
Riiiiiight!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 4 hours ago 




Not going to happen, the religious right candidates will sign on but the other candidates wont and honestly not doing so isn’t going to hurt them at this point. Mat Staver can huff and puff all he wants but many candidates will be looking to avoid this as much as possible.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Schlukitz  • 4 hours ago 




NewsMax.
Another fine example of balanced news reporting. NOT!
We now have an alternative to watching Fox News.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cyril  • 34 minutes ago 




Give it up already, the ship is sinking and the coast guard is nowhere in sight.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
chrisjames147  • 2 hours ago 




Not that Huckabee or Santorum had a ghost of a chance to get elected they just killed that completely. Imagine a president that won't listen to the courts, that person wouldn't last one term. Thanks Matty Boy, let's knock the lunatics off early.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rich  • 2 hours ago 




I'm not going to listen to this asshole, but I'm not surprised that Huckabee and Santorum signed the pledge.
Actually this is encouraging if Staver thinks they lost. I was rather discouraged by some of the questions I read from Breyer and Kennedy.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jeffrey Samuels  • 2 hours ago 




does this mean that they are not going to marry someone of the same gender?
I am so relieved!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RickinMA  • 3 hours ago 




If these signers disobey SCOTUS. Can we arrest them? Would they become martyrs like the radical Muslims? America is that close people.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
NowAnAgnostic  • 3 hours ago 




Hosted by J. D. Hayworth, former repugnican AZ Congressman and windbag.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gordon.  • 3 hours ago 




This is so fucking stupid. Exactly HOW are you going to "disobey SCOTUS" should they rule that same sex marriage is legal ? HOW ?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mark > Gordon.  • 2 hours ago 




Stamp their lil feet and throw a temper tantrum. These people have no concept of the 3 branches of government - fuck….
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MBear > Gordon.  • 3 hours ago 




they won't get gay married...?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




[finger problem]
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




[finger problem]
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/mat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html#disqus_thread







     

  <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;ord=1430266556;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOIdFkq8zxNwMoWZYCoFsiS8IkBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAwtAAAgQAAQIAAIYAHRisIwAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOIdFkq8zxNwMoWZYCoFsiS8IkBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAwtAAAgQAAQIAAIYAHRisIwAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430266556?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430266556?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win
Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS
NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided
NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must Sign Our Pledge To Disobey SCOTUS



Huckabee and Santorum have already signed. Start at 3:30.

Labels: crackpots, crazy people, GOP, hate groups, Liberty Counsel, Mat Staver, Mike Huckabee, religion, Rick Santorum


posted by Joe Jervis
       118 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;ord=1430266557;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAMvMRNDR3MoWZYCoFsiS9IkBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAAiasAAgQAAQIAAIYASRZNowAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAMvMRNDR3MoWZYCoFsiS9IkBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAAiasAAgQAAQIAAIYASRZNowAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430266557?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430266557?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/mat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html#disqus_thread















     

  <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;ord=1430266556;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOIdFkq8zxNwMoWZYCoFsiS8IkBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAwtAAAgQAAQIAAIYAHRisIwAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOIdFkq8zxNwMoWZYCoFsiS8IkBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAwtAAAgQAAQIAAIYAHRisIwAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430266556?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430266556?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win
Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS
NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided
NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must Sign Our Pledge To Disobey SCOTUS



Huckabee and Santorum have already signed. Start at 3:30.

Labels: crackpots, crazy people, GOP, hate groups, Liberty Counsel, Mat Staver, Mike Huckabee, religion, Rick Santorum


posted by Joe Jervis
       118 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;ord=1430266557;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAMvMRNDR3MoWZYCoFsiS9IkBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAAiasAAgQAAQIAAIYASRZNowAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAMvMRNDR3MoWZYCoFsiS9IkBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAAiasAAgQAAQIAAIYASRZNowAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fmat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430266557?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430266557?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/mat-staver-all-gop-candidates-must-sign.html#disqus_thread












  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



10 Highest Paying Jobs With a 2 Year Degree  Education To Advance 




15 Breeds to Avoid When Choosing A Dog  Dog Notebook 




Unique Method Regrows Lost Hair (Do This Daily)  Lifestyle Journal 




Check out the 30 Hottest Female Celebrity Bodies of All Time  Rant, Inc. 



Also on JoeMyGod

 PBS Examines Kentucky's Case   66 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   215 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  118 comments 


Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex …  43 comments 






 70 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Corey  • 6 hours ago 




He cherry-picked Kennedy without looking at the bigger picture. He is going to have epic sadz in 2 months...
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > Corey  • 6 hours ago 




They still need to have talking points for their money begs.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > teeveedub  • 6 hours ago 




Exactly - this is the brave face they MUST put on. At no point can they afford to show a single chink in the armor, especially with their puppet masters, I mean donors so keen on seeing a return on their investments.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




Doesn't Eastman look like someone just put a large Kodak in his aperture?...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GayOldLady > teeveedub  • 6 hours ago 




"They still need to have talking points for their money begs."
Yeah....He couldn't very well tell his flock "We're screwed" !!!! They've spent their entire lives exercising control over our lives and now that they're on the precipice of losing that control they're in full SPIN mode. The only chance they have of pulling off the daily money beg is to paint a rosy picture. Just think about it, they have 60+ days until their entire money begging Scam Empire crumbles beneath them. Breaks my damn heart, NOT!!!!!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > GayOldLady  • 5 hours ago 




However, notice that many of these zealots have pledged to keep fighting after the decision if the court doesn't rule in their favor. They're also setting up for failure, hoping that their followers will continue to tilt at windmills and send them more ca$h for their $cam.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bill@19D > Corey  • 5 hours ago 




It’s the same mentality that they apply to everything else, they over hype anything that remotely supports them while downplaying and ignoring everything that goes against them. It’s an approach that denies change for as long as possible and that exactly what they want to do here, in spite of the fact that it’s an approach that sets them up for bitter disappointment.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Steverino > Corey  • 6 hours ago 




They are good at that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Rich Farias  • 6 hours ago 




Except, of course, that Kennedy also knows that "argument from tradition" and "slippery slope" are logical fallacies, and that there is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment in denying marriage equality to same-sex couples. I think it was pretty obvious that he was playing Devil's Advocate here.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Rich Farias  • 6 hours ago 




Something our side should have been ready for and wasn't.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TommyTune > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Well in fairness they already heard Bois and Olsen eloquently make these arguments in the Windsor case.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Tom G  • 6 hours ago 




He hit every talking point/catch phrase/scare quote. Well done. #lastgasp
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
delk > Tom G  • 6 hours ago 




#deathrattle
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
A quick read for some folks.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GayOldLady > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




A very helpful read. Thank you for sharing
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




Thanks Ninja! I had to take a nap, that was a nice way to catch up with today.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Thanks for the link.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
danolgb  • 6 hours ago 




I drove past Chapman University twice on Sunday and both times flipped the bird at the place which employees this vile person. I know it's juvenile and doesn't really change anything, but it made me feel better.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cjs > danolgb  • 6 hours ago 




I'm sure some Sunday School teacher-like gay will come along and chide you for not being dignified and nice and shit like that, but this ain't Sunday School, and this ain't kindergarten.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gene > danolgb  • 5 hours ago 




hell, I just hope they saw you and thought "why would anyone hate us? and started thinking....but, that's a lot to ask.
in any case, when an asshole has driven someone to respond, you don't judge the responder...you just the asshole who started it
give that one finger salute high and proud my friend, high and proud.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
danolgb > Gene  • 5 hours ago 




What's interesting is it was founded by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The same ones who said they'd move their convention if the Indiana religious freedom bill was passed. I'm sure they're stuck in the same place as Cal State Northridge is with Lopez with these vile individuals having tenure. Or, of course, they'd get sued for "religious discrimination" if they fired his ass.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JW Swift  • 6 hours ago 




"...activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states..."
Or, more correctly, judges around the nation have struck-down as unconstitutional a number of laws passed by legislators who have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views against the inalienable rights of individuals to equal treatment under the law.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




He of course left out the questions Kennedy asked the state which did NOT favor them in any way shape or form but we shouldn't be shocked by that.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk  • 6 hours ago 




Am I the only one that hears (or sees) the word 'sovereign' and think tea tard?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > delk  • 6 hours ago 




Why, Delk. How could you think such a thing?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
joe ho  • 6 hours ago 




as predicted, kennedy supplied them with their talking point for two months.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > joe ho  • 6 hours ago 




One of these would have the same effect:
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > joe ho  • 5 hours ago 




He was always going to ask hard questions of our side and the other side was always going to pretend that this means far more then it actually does. If that’s how the other side wants to play the game then fine, let them. NOM absolutely needs to not lose here and so even if they are convinced that they will lose they can’t admit that until the ruling actually comes out as it completely zaps their reason for existing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
The Professor  • 6 hours ago 




Please, STFU. It's gonna be 5-4 or 6-3 and then hopefully just a few weeks until NOM goes belly up.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > The Professor  • 5 hours ago 




Step 1 NOM closes its doors step 2 Brian Brown announces the creation of IOM and says that it will still have efforts in the US. Eastman may or may not remain affiliated with them at that point, perhaps just in a more
limited role should IOM seek any legal involvement in the US.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd20036 > The Professor  • 6 hours ago 




7-2 maybe? Alito never voted to let the stays stand
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
danolgb > Todd20036  • 6 hours ago 




We don't actually know that. He could have voted for the stays, but didn't feel the need to sign onto Scalia and Thomas's tantrums.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
The Professor > Todd20036  • 4 hours ago 




I really encourage folks to go listen to the actual audio. I think Bonauto started a bit shaky, but Donald Verrilli killed it and cleaned up the rough start. Kagan basically sounded like the most sane person in the room, and completely destroyed John Busch. I still predict a 5-4 or maybe even a 6-3.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Jim in MN  • 6 hours ago 




Im encouraged that Kennedy didn't have much to say regarding question 2. Why is that, Mr. Eastman? Could it be that if Question 1 is decided in favour of marriage equality that question 2 becomes ENTIRELY moot? Yup. Thought so.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Jim in MN  • 5 hours ago 




A very telling point indeed and I would note that NOM et all are essentially ignoring that second question entirely focusing entirely on the initial questions asked of our side and ignoring everything else. They know the spin they want and they are just looking for quotes to fit that spin.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jim in MN > bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




Exactly. Now on the first question, Kennedy spoke up exactly 24 times. On the second question (which is entirely tied to losing the first question) Kennedy spoke up exactly once.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
prestonbuell  • 6 hours ago 




Because of course Mr Eastman has been correct about so much in the recent past.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > prestonbuell  • 6 hours ago 




That's why his friends call him Belle Wither.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > prestonbuell  • 5 hours ago 




Very good point there was several points at which Mr.
Eastman said he was encouraged about their chances of being allowed to intervene in Oregon and that was completely denied. They insist that they think they will
win until the very end so their input can’t be factored into serious evaluation at all because they are always going to say the same thing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
ConvivialVisits  • 6 hours ago 




If Kennedy truly felt that marriage should be left up to the states, he would have voted to hear the 2014 circuit court cases when SCOTUS has that opportunity.
If Kennedy were to rule against SSM nationwide on a basis of states rights at this point, he would essentially be saying he believes states should be beholden to circuit courts, but those circuit courts should be free from SCOTUS interference with their rulings.
I don't see how Kennedy can rule in any way other than affirming marriage equality nationwide at this point, if he didn't broadcast his intentions in 2014, he did so by not joining the dissent when SCOTUS refused to issue a stay for Alabama's case.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SFBruce > ConvivialVisits  • 5 hours ago 




I hate to be the one to point this out, but Kennedy DID vote to hear Perry on the merits, he just wasn't in the majority. At the same time, he wrote the opinion in Windsor, which, of course, declared unconstitutional that portion of DOMA which denied federal benefits to those married in states permitting same sex marriage.
I'm still pretty optimistic about a good outcome here, but there's no question that Kennedy has managed to give both sides something to hang onto.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Toasterlad > SFBruce  • 3 hours ago 




"there's no question that Kennedy has managed to give both sides something to hang onto."
Just the way he likes it. He LOVES playing spoiler. Such a drama queen.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ConvivialVisits > SFBruce  • 4 hours ago 




I'm not going back as far as the Perry case— Kennedy may have voted to hear that case, and hear it they did... only to determine they lacked standing when they ruled.
By contrast, SCOTUS voted NOT to hear the multitude of circuit court cases in 2014, a year after the Perry case came before the court. They only need 4 justices to vote to hear a case for it to get on the court's docket, so I'm skeptical that Kennedy was in the minority there (when Alito, Thomas and Scalia are all safe bets to hear those cases)
Either way, we're BOTH optimistic here :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rich  • 6 hours ago 




Western civilization is only a few millennia old, and marriage has changed repeatedly in that time period, so I'm surprised Kennedy would make that statement.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Rich  • 6 hours ago 




He asked during Prop 8 as well for our side before hammering the state on the harm done to children of same sex couples.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Reassuring. We need him if we're going to win.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stev84 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I really don't like how nebulous his favorite arguments are. "Dignity" is nice and all, but it's a piss poor legal argument.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Stev84  • 2 hours ago 




I agree but it's better then ruling against us.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




While they are optimistic, so is John Eastman, chairman of the National
Organization ... "We're confident the court will uphold DOMA," he said.
 That is what happened the last time Eastman boasted about what SCOTUS would do.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




He was also confident that they would be allowed to intervene in Oregon when they never had any chance of being allowed to intervene. It is his job to pretend that they are going to win right up to the bitter end, reality doesn’t factor into the conversation at all.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SFBruce > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




While this isn't a slam dunk for our side, I'm not at all disturbed by their optimism. Eastman isn't about to say they might loose.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Blake Jordan  • 6 hours ago 




They will grasp at anything...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
kanehau > Blake Jordan  • 6 hours ago 




Which is why we should all keep our pants zipped.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate > kanehau  • 6 hours ago 




... and an eye on our wallets.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate > Blake Jordan  • 6 hours ago 




NOM knows its gravy train is about to derail and these grifters are desperate to keep the money coming. Just a bunch of pathetic money grabbers, who have no other employment prospects in the real world.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JoeyKY  • 6 hours ago 




ugh this is exactly what i was talking about. everyone's so sure that we're going to win. im sorry, im way to skeptical to hop on that band wagon.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > JoeyKY  • 6 hours ago 




Did you hear the questions Kennedy asked the state?
 That does not sound like a man agreeing with them.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dr tod > JoeyKY  • 5 hours ago 




It ain't over til the fat lady seizes the rainbow.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sam the Man  • 6 hours ago 




"marriage has existed for millennia" It has NOT existed for millennia.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JoeyKY > Sam the Man  • 6 hours ago 




no has it only been a heterosexual establishment that the great con Scalia kept saying over and over. He clearly needs a history lesson or two.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 4 hours ago 




Dear Mr. Eastman: You know what wasn't mentioned once in the oral presentations, GOD! Even your lawyers know that God is a fallacious argument and not a topic for serious legal discussion.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




NOM is approaching SCOTUS with the same lying approach that they use for everything else, they over hype anything that might possible be supportive of them while dismissing everything else. They are selectively only picking out the hard questions for our side while ignoring the questioning of the states. I would put zero stock in how NOM is spinning this.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cyril  • an hour ago 




that face thou/////looks like he is smack in the middle of a prostate exam
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
agcons  • an hour ago 




I suppose Baby Huey needs to feel encouraged about something.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joseph Miceli  • an hour ago 




If states can "define" marriage, then they define other things. Will you leave it up to the state of Louisiana or Idaho to define what constitutes religion? Individual states already define childhood, illness, competence and nudity. By all means, shall we add religion to the list, or should we put your faith up for a public vote? I wonder how THAT would turn out.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Toasterlad  • 3 hours ago 




I believe this is called "whistling past the graveyard".
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
Jim  • 4 hours ago 




Kennedy has always asked tough, probing questions of both sides in Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, and US v Windsor. He does this (obviously) to get good answers on the public record. Our side gave good, solid, powerful answers. It's not the questions that matter; it's the answers. Is anybody seriously arguing that the other side presented a good case? It's almost as if the lawyers for the other side weren't even there and the case boiled down to a conversation between the pro-marriage equality lawyers and the justices. Look at the record of this court. It has consistently eliminated discrimination against gay people and expanded freedom. It has upheld appeals that ruled in favor of marriage equality across the country. It clearly knows that resistance to marriage equality has crumbled. Given these facts, why is the other side anything but despairing? They had no case at all.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus  • 5 hours ago 




bacon has existed for millennia. fungus has existed for millennia. "marriage" has warped and transformed and changed over and over again to include anywhere from 2 to thousands of people depending on the time, place and religion.
our secular society recognizes a legal form of marriage for the purpose of having consistent laws relating to property and parenting. nothing in my previous sentences prevents people of the same sex from engaging in it. certainly not "millennia" of "tradition" which varies so widely you could write a GRRMartin length saga about it.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Tom G  • 5 hours ago 




and this "win" would save them 13 states (at this juncture)?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SFBruce  • 5 hours ago 




No surprise that Eastman is focusing on Kennedy's millennia comments, while completely ignoring his observation, made twice, I believe, that about the same amount of time has expired since Lawrence as had expired between Brown and Loving.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/nom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html#disqus_thread







  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



10 Highest Paying Jobs With a 2 Year Degree  Education To Advance 




15 Breeds to Avoid When Choosing A Dog  Dog Notebook 




Unique Method Regrows Lost Hair (Do This Daily)  Lifestyle Journal 




Check out the 30 Hottest Female Celebrity Bodies of All Time  Rant, Inc. 



Also on JoeMyGod

 PBS Examines Kentucky's Case   66 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   215 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  118 comments 


Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex …  43 comments 






 70 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Corey  • 6 hours ago 




He cherry-picked Kennedy without looking at the bigger picture. He is going to have epic sadz in 2 months...
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > Corey  • 6 hours ago 




They still need to have talking points for their money begs.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > teeveedub  • 6 hours ago 




Exactly - this is the brave face they MUST put on. At no point can they afford to show a single chink in the armor, especially with their puppet masters, I mean donors so keen on seeing a return on their investments.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




Doesn't Eastman look like someone just put a large Kodak in his aperture?...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GayOldLady > teeveedub  • 6 hours ago 




"They still need to have talking points for their money begs."
Yeah....He couldn't very well tell his flock "We're screwed" !!!! They've spent their entire lives exercising control over our lives and now that they're on the precipice of losing that control they're in full SPIN mode. The only chance they have of pulling off the daily money beg is to paint a rosy picture. Just think about it, they have 60+ days until their entire money begging Scam Empire crumbles beneath them. Breaks my damn heart, NOT!!!!!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > GayOldLady  • 5 hours ago 




However, notice that many of these zealots have pledged to keep fighting after the decision if the court doesn't rule in their favor. They're also setting up for failure, hoping that their followers will continue to tilt at windmills and send them more ca$h for their $cam.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bill@19D > Corey  • 5 hours ago 




It’s the same mentality that they apply to everything else, they over hype anything that remotely supports them while downplaying and ignoring everything that goes against them. It’s an approach that denies change for as long as possible and that exactly what they want to do here, in spite of the fact that it’s an approach that sets them up for bitter disappointment.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Steverino > Corey  • 6 hours ago 




They are good at that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Rich Farias  • 6 hours ago 




Except, of course, that Kennedy also knows that "argument from tradition" and "slippery slope" are logical fallacies, and that there is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment in denying marriage equality to same-sex couples. I think it was pretty obvious that he was playing Devil's Advocate here.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Rich Farias  • 6 hours ago 




Something our side should have been ready for and wasn't.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TommyTune > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Well in fairness they already heard Bois and Olsen eloquently make these arguments in the Windsor case.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Tom G  • 6 hours ago 




He hit every talking point/catch phrase/scare quote. Well done. #lastgasp
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
delk > Tom G  • 6 hours ago 




#deathrattle
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
A quick read for some folks.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GayOldLady > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




A very helpful read. Thank you for sharing
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




Thanks Ninja! I had to take a nap, that was a nice way to catch up with today.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Thanks for the link.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
danolgb  • 6 hours ago 




I drove past Chapman University twice on Sunday and both times flipped the bird at the place which employees this vile person. I know it's juvenile and doesn't really change anything, but it made me feel better.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cjs > danolgb  • 6 hours ago 




I'm sure some Sunday School teacher-like gay will come along and chide you for not being dignified and nice and shit like that, but this ain't Sunday School, and this ain't kindergarten.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gene > danolgb  • 5 hours ago 




hell, I just hope they saw you and thought "why would anyone hate us? and started thinking....but, that's a lot to ask.
in any case, when an asshole has driven someone to respond, you don't judge the responder...you just the asshole who started it
give that one finger salute high and proud my friend, high and proud.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
danolgb > Gene  • 5 hours ago 




What's interesting is it was founded by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The same ones who said they'd move their convention if the Indiana religious freedom bill was passed. I'm sure they're stuck in the same place as Cal State Northridge is with Lopez with these vile individuals having tenure. Or, of course, they'd get sued for "religious discrimination" if they fired his ass.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JW Swift  • 6 hours ago 




"...activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states..."
Or, more correctly, judges around the nation have struck-down as unconstitutional a number of laws passed by legislators who have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views against the inalienable rights of individuals to equal treatment under the law.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




He of course left out the questions Kennedy asked the state which did NOT favor them in any way shape or form but we shouldn't be shocked by that.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk  • 6 hours ago 




Am I the only one that hears (or sees) the word 'sovereign' and think tea tard?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > delk  • 6 hours ago 




Why, Delk. How could you think such a thing?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
joe ho  • 6 hours ago 




as predicted, kennedy supplied them with their talking point for two months.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > joe ho  • 6 hours ago 




One of these would have the same effect:
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > joe ho  • 5 hours ago 




He was always going to ask hard questions of our side and the other side was always going to pretend that this means far more then it actually does. If that’s how the other side wants to play the game then fine, let them. NOM absolutely needs to not lose here and so even if they are convinced that they will lose they can’t admit that until the ruling actually comes out as it completely zaps their reason for existing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
The Professor  • 6 hours ago 




Please, STFU. It's gonna be 5-4 or 6-3 and then hopefully just a few weeks until NOM goes belly up.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > The Professor  • 5 hours ago 




Step 1 NOM closes its doors step 2 Brian Brown announces the creation of IOM and says that it will still have efforts in the US. Eastman may or may not remain affiliated with them at that point, perhaps just in a more
limited role should IOM seek any legal involvement in the US.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd20036 > The Professor  • 6 hours ago 




7-2 maybe? Alito never voted to let the stays stand
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
danolgb > Todd20036  • 6 hours ago 




We don't actually know that. He could have voted for the stays, but didn't feel the need to sign onto Scalia and Thomas's tantrums.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
The Professor > Todd20036  • 4 hours ago 




I really encourage folks to go listen to the actual audio. I think Bonauto started a bit shaky, but Donald Verrilli killed it and cleaned up the rough start. Kagan basically sounded like the most sane person in the room, and completely destroyed John Busch. I still predict a 5-4 or maybe even a 6-3.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Jim in MN  • 6 hours ago 




Im encouraged that Kennedy didn't have much to say regarding question 2. Why is that, Mr. Eastman? Could it be that if Question 1 is decided in favour of marriage equality that question 2 becomes ENTIRELY moot? Yup. Thought so.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Jim in MN  • 5 hours ago 




A very telling point indeed and I would note that NOM et all are essentially ignoring that second question entirely focusing entirely on the initial questions asked of our side and ignoring everything else. They know the spin they want and they are just looking for quotes to fit that spin.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jim in MN > bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




Exactly. Now on the first question, Kennedy spoke up exactly 24 times. On the second question (which is entirely tied to losing the first question) Kennedy spoke up exactly once.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
prestonbuell  • 6 hours ago 




Because of course Mr Eastman has been correct about so much in the recent past.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > prestonbuell  • 6 hours ago 




That's why his friends call him Belle Wither.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > prestonbuell  • 5 hours ago 




Very good point there was several points at which Mr.
Eastman said he was encouraged about their chances of being allowed to intervene in Oregon and that was completely denied. They insist that they think they will
win until the very end so their input can’t be factored into serious evaluation at all because they are always going to say the same thing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
ConvivialVisits  • 6 hours ago 




If Kennedy truly felt that marriage should be left up to the states, he would have voted to hear the 2014 circuit court cases when SCOTUS has that opportunity.
If Kennedy were to rule against SSM nationwide on a basis of states rights at this point, he would essentially be saying he believes states should be beholden to circuit courts, but those circuit courts should be free from SCOTUS interference with their rulings.
I don't see how Kennedy can rule in any way other than affirming marriage equality nationwide at this point, if he didn't broadcast his intentions in 2014, he did so by not joining the dissent when SCOTUS refused to issue a stay for Alabama's case.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SFBruce > ConvivialVisits  • 5 hours ago 




I hate to be the one to point this out, but Kennedy DID vote to hear Perry on the merits, he just wasn't in the majority. At the same time, he wrote the opinion in Windsor, which, of course, declared unconstitutional that portion of DOMA which denied federal benefits to those married in states permitting same sex marriage.
I'm still pretty optimistic about a good outcome here, but there's no question that Kennedy has managed to give both sides something to hang onto.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Toasterlad > SFBruce  • 3 hours ago 




"there's no question that Kennedy has managed to give both sides something to hang onto."
Just the way he likes it. He LOVES playing spoiler. Such a drama queen.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ConvivialVisits > SFBruce  • 4 hours ago 




I'm not going back as far as the Perry case— Kennedy may have voted to hear that case, and hear it they did... only to determine they lacked standing when they ruled.
By contrast, SCOTUS voted NOT to hear the multitude of circuit court cases in 2014, a year after the Perry case came before the court. They only need 4 justices to vote to hear a case for it to get on the court's docket, so I'm skeptical that Kennedy was in the minority there (when Alito, Thomas and Scalia are all safe bets to hear those cases)
Either way, we're BOTH optimistic here :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rich  • 6 hours ago 




Western civilization is only a few millennia old, and marriage has changed repeatedly in that time period, so I'm surprised Kennedy would make that statement.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Rich  • 6 hours ago 




He asked during Prop 8 as well for our side before hammering the state on the harm done to children of same sex couples.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Reassuring. We need him if we're going to win.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stev84 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I really don't like how nebulous his favorite arguments are. "Dignity" is nice and all, but it's a piss poor legal argument.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Stev84  • 2 hours ago 




I agree but it's better then ruling against us.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




While they are optimistic, so is John Eastman, chairman of the National
Organization ... "We're confident the court will uphold DOMA," he said.
 That is what happened the last time Eastman boasted about what SCOTUS would do.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




He was also confident that they would be allowed to intervene in Oregon when they never had any chance of being allowed to intervene. It is his job to pretend that they are going to win right up to the bitter end, reality doesn’t factor into the conversation at all.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SFBruce > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




While this isn't a slam dunk for our side, I'm not at all disturbed by their optimism. Eastman isn't about to say they might loose.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Blake Jordan  • 6 hours ago 




They will grasp at anything...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
kanehau > Blake Jordan  • 6 hours ago 




Which is why we should all keep our pants zipped.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate > kanehau  • 6 hours ago 




... and an eye on our wallets.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate > Blake Jordan  • 6 hours ago 




NOM knows its gravy train is about to derail and these grifters are desperate to keep the money coming. Just a bunch of pathetic money grabbers, who have no other employment prospects in the real world.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JoeyKY  • 6 hours ago 




ugh this is exactly what i was talking about. everyone's so sure that we're going to win. im sorry, im way to skeptical to hop on that band wagon.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > JoeyKY  • 6 hours ago 




Did you hear the questions Kennedy asked the state?
 That does not sound like a man agreeing with them.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dr tod > JoeyKY  • 5 hours ago 




It ain't over til the fat lady seizes the rainbow.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sam the Man  • 6 hours ago 




"marriage has existed for millennia" It has NOT existed for millennia.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JoeyKY > Sam the Man  • 6 hours ago 




no has it only been a heterosexual establishment that the great con Scalia kept saying over and over. He clearly needs a history lesson or two.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 4 hours ago 




Dear Mr. Eastman: You know what wasn't mentioned once in the oral presentations, GOD! Even your lawyers know that God is a fallacious argument and not a topic for serious legal discussion.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




NOM is approaching SCOTUS with the same lying approach that they use for everything else, they over hype anything that might possible be supportive of them while dismissing everything else. They are selectively only picking out the hard questions for our side while ignoring the questioning of the states. I would put zero stock in how NOM is spinning this.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cyril  • an hour ago 




that face thou/////looks like he is smack in the middle of a prostate exam
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
agcons  • an hour ago 




I suppose Baby Huey needs to feel encouraged about something.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joseph Miceli  • an hour ago 




If states can "define" marriage, then they define other things. Will you leave it up to the state of Louisiana or Idaho to define what constitutes religion? Individual states already define childhood, illness, competence and nudity. By all means, shall we add religion to the list, or should we put your faith up for a public vote? I wonder how THAT would turn out.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Toasterlad  • 3 hours ago 




I believe this is called "whistling past the graveyard".
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jim  • 4 hours ago 




Kennedy has always asked tough, probing questions of both sides in Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, and US v Windsor. He does this (obviously) to get good answers on the public record. Our side gave good, solid, powerful answers. It's not the questions that matter; it's the answers. Is anybody seriously arguing that the other side presented a good case? It's almost as if the lawyers for the other side weren't even there and the case boiled down to a conversation between the pro-marriage equality lawyers and the justices. Look at the record of this court. It has consistently eliminated discrimination against gay people and expanded freedom. It has upheld appeals that ruled in favor of marriage equality across the country. It clearly knows that resistance to marriage equality has crumbled. Given these facts, why is the other side anything but despairing? They had no case at all.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus  • 5 hours ago 




bacon has existed for millennia. fungus has existed for millennia. "marriage" has warped and transformed and changed over and over again to include anywhere from 2 to thousands of people depending on the time, place and religion.
our secular society recognizes a legal form of marriage for the purpose of having consistent laws relating to property and parenting. nothing in my previous sentences prevents people of the same sex from engaging in it. certainly not "millennia" of "tradition" which varies so widely you could write a GRRMartin length saga about it.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Tom G  • 5 hours ago 




and this "win" would save them 13 states (at this juncture)?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SFBruce  • 5 hours ago 




No surprise that Eastman is focusing on Kennedy's millennia comments, while completely ignoring his observation, made twice, I believe, that about the same amount of time has expired since Lawrence as had expired between Brown and Loving.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/nom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html#disqus_thread














     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy





"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is. It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it. The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue. We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia – the union of one man and one woman. Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake – upending an institution that has served society well for millennia – and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage." - NOM chairman John Eastman, via press release.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, crackpots, hate groups, John Eastman, marriage equality, NOM, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       70 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;ord=1430267690;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2rni0kt_kvMoWZYCoFsiQqJ0BVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAA0KUAAgQAAQIAAIYA9BZA0QAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fnom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2rni0kt_kvMoWZYCoFsiQqJ0BVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAA0KUAAgQAAQIAAIYA9BZA0QAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fnom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267690?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267690?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/nom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html#disqus_thread














     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy





"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is. It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it. The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue. We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia – the union of one man and one woman. Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake – upending an institution that has served society well for millennia – and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage." - NOM chairman John Eastman, via press release.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, crackpots, hate groups, John Eastman, marriage equality, NOM, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       70 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;ord=1430267690;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2rni0kt_kvMoWZYCoFsiQqJ0BVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAA0KUAAgQAAQIAAIYA9BZA0QAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fnom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2rni0kt_kvMoWZYCoFsiQqJ0BVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAA0KUAAgQAAQIAAIYA9BZA0QAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fnom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267690?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267690?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/nom-were-encouraged-about-kennedy.html#disqus_thread










  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Forget Iran, Iraq, Ukraine: This is Where War WWIII Starts  Money Morning 




Have you ever Googled yourself? This site reveals more info!  Instant Checkmate 




35 Tattoos Every Basic Girl Wishes She Had  Brainjet.com 




The Highest Paying Cash Back Credit Card Has Just Hit The Market  Next Advisor 



Also on JoeMyGod

Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  118 comments 


Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex …  43 comments 


 Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS   39 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   211 comments 






 147 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Kennedy talked about the gap between Lawrence and Obergefell twice being the same as the gap between Brown and Loving.
 And since he wrote the Lawrence, that is telling for a lot of people about how he'll rule.
 That and he was NOT friendly to the state's arguments in any way shape or form, especially when it came to same sex couples raising children.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mr. E  • 6 hours ago 




Everyone needs to calm the hell down and stop spazzing out about losing and/or "splitting the baby"! If the Court had ANY doubts about marriage equality and its spread, they had their chance to stop it in October! They didn't, and by letting it move forward in those circuits, the 9th, Florida, and Alabama it's shown how things are going. I predict a 5-4 ruling in our favor, Kennedy has made his intentions clear (he likes to play the "swing vote" card up a lot, like he did in Windsor). Roberts was a total douche and anyone who still had hopes of him ruling for us, got a rude wake up call today. Now to wait until June :) relax, people
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Christian Tarr > Mr. E  • 4 hours ago 




I really hope you're right :)
I just find myself being super cynical and pessimistic over this. Historical precedent kinda colors all of this, despite the recent advances for the past few years.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




RE Geidner...you sure wouldn't get that understanding from the haters. A bunch of them spoke after they left the courtroom (including our beloved Ryan Anderson) and he was practically glowing about the questions from Roberts. I hate this.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




Same thing happened after DOMA.
 The haters were crowing about a victory right up until the moment the ruling in our favor came down, won't be any different here.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




*fingers crossed* I hope you're right.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Gotta keep that money train rolling.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd20036 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Kind of like the 2012 election
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gene > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




ahhh...in my discomfort, I forget...and, you are RIGHT...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Joe in PA  • 5 hours ago 




They are of the Rovian mindset: That they can create reality by declaring it, facts be damned...which admittedly works on the incurious but likely not on a majority of the SC Justices.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > GreatLakeSailor  • 2 hours ago 




Like Rove convincing most of Congress that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for invading it?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
John30013 > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




Just like Rmoney was gonna win Ohio, hands down.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D > Joe in PA  • 5 hours ago 




And that’s because they approach SCOTUS with the same lying approach that they use for everything else, they over hype anything that might possible be supportive of them while dismissing everything else. They are selectively only picking out the hard questions for our side while ignoring the questioning of the states.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Harley  • 7 hours ago 




Yea, but what does Nate Silver have to say about it.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate > Harley  • 7 hours ago 




Lol!
But his statistical methodology does not apply here at all.
He has no data to work with. Methinks he knows no more than any of us on this question. Now when 2016 arrives, he'll be my main source for predictions.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KT  • 7 hours ago 




Chris Geidner has been covering SCOTUS for Buzzfeed for a while now so I trust he has a better read on the Justices than casual observers. Still, its going to be a long two months waiting for this decision.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JCF  • 7 hours ago 




I'm feeling much better after hearing Kenji Yushino's (sp) take (on MSNBC) re Kennedy. Pull quote: "Obergefell could be to Lawrence (v Texas: which KENNEDY WROTE!), as Loving (v Virginia) was to Brown (v Board of Ed)." In other words, the natural progression of civil rights. :-)
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
pj > JCF  • 4 hours ago 




kenji always calms me down. very thoughtful guy. is he single....
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




I worry about predictions. They can be wrong. Just ask President Dewey.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ahistoric > Michael Smith  • 5 hours ago 




Was he gay?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
brian > Ahistoric  • 4 hours ago 




Very!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > brian  • 2 hours ago 




Yeah didn't Alice Roosevelt Longworth say Dewey looks like both grooms on top of a gay wedding cake?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Todd20036 > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




and RMoney
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robincho > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




Very true, man...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




I am very encouraged by what we have seen today and I think
it falls under the expected model. I wouldn’t count Roberts out but I’m also not worrying too much on that point regardless.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




I am as well.
 I know we have to worry a little but I don't get the negativity here and elsewhere.
Kennedy was much harsher on the states then he was on our side.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I think we will win 5-4 as well but I have to agree with what Ari Waldman and others have said.
 She has done amazing things for our side but Mary Bonauto did NOT perform well for parts of these arguments, hence the reason Breyer had to throw the lifeline with a couple of the questions he asked.
 If nothing else, our side knew what Kennedy was going to ask since we had the Prop 8 case to go from.
 She should have been better prepared for the devil's advocate questions from him then she was.
 All that aside, I think we will have a 5-4 ruling in our favor striking down the bans.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Owen > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I really wish Olson and Boies had been arguing all of this case.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




This case will not rest on the oral arguments presented in two or three hours before the Justices. There are literally volumes of arguments in scholarly legal briefs which will undoubtedly have far more impact than what amounts to an academic exercise demonstrating attorneys' abilities to "think on their feet." Considering the precedents of Lawrence and Loving and Windsor, it would baffle and amaze me if this court could possibly arrive at any conclusion aside from a favorable one for the LGBT community.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > j.martindale  • 4 hours ago 




Splitting the baby, by finding a state right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples or not recognize marriages performed in another state, is not out of the question. I'd like to believe that we will get something as good or better than 5-4 making marriage equality legal everywhere in the US and its territories. I'm not going to set my expectations that high just yet.
The problem with a question of this magnitude is that it will be very hard to make the ruling narrow, or rather, proceed incrementally in hopes that public opinion will shift so as to complete the transition democratically—one cannot jump the Grand Canyon by hopping on one foot.
The court has to pull up its big kid pants on this one and it really is trying to keep M.E. from turning into an only slightly less intense Roe, as tenuous as that analogy may be.
From our perspective, it seems this should be easy. From the point of view of SCOTUS, they have to be able to convince themselves, or at least five of their members have to be convinced, that there is a legal, Constitution-based route to such a decision that will not create more problems.
This is a very strange court, reflecting the profound contrasts among the opinions of the people that live in the US. It is an interesting time in our history as a nation and the adaptability of our laws with respect to our ideals is clearly under stress in many ways.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Robincho > Ninja0980  • 3 hours ago 




Striking down the bans on the banns!...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GreatLakeSailor  • 6 hours ago 




Ari Ezra Waldman is posting - AEW is the BEST commenter on the legal fight for Marriage Equality. Authoritive, accessible, insightful.
Part 1: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
Part 2: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
Part 3: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
Edit:
Part 4: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a split decision. No constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.
A split decision will semi-satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives on the court. All segments of the American public will be able to declare semi-victory.
Look for it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




A ruling that makes same sex couples have to drive hundreds of miles to get marriage licenses is a loss, period.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I'm talking politics here -- not "reason" or "equity."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




It'd be a draw for marriage equality, but put it your way, it'd be a WIN for us long term. The GOP'ers would have to keep the issue as part of their forefront positions continuing to make them look as ass-backward as they truly are.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 7 hours ago 




It would not be a draw. It would set us back for decades to come. ME would disappear quickly in conservative states like Oklahoma, and maybe eventually even Pennsylvania. The status of existing marriages in 19+ states, including many in California, would be in flux. And couples would have to travel out of state to marry.
IMO, this scenario is highly unlikely.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




Indeed, upholding state bans is a loss for our side, simple as that.
 Many couples don't have the resources to travel hundreds of miles to get married and in places like California or Oregon, the bigots could force this issue on the ballot again.
It's all or nothing at this point, period.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
canoebum > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Not only that, but the hater states would devise all kinds of legislative obstacles for couples wed out of state who are looking for recognition. I can easily see them imposing ridiculous fees for a recognition 'certificate', and waiting periods, and onerous paperwork requirements. The evil games they could play would be endless. You'll see requirements like, we'll recognize your out of state marriage after a 2 years residency following the marriage, even if you've been a lifelong state resident, still a 2 year wait. Other similar bullshit.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Refugay > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




It would also create a nightmare scenario for corporations and the IRS
.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Refugay  • 6 hours ago 




The corporations being on our side may be our salvation. This court never met a corporation it didn't love.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rich > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




I hope you are right. We need a complete victory.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
another_steve > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




Too many people in the marriage equality states already know / respect / love married queer couples or queer couples planning on getting married. That train has already left the station.
In the current marriage equality states, a split decision will not threaten anything.
If anything, the caterers and wedding planners in the marriage equality states -- upon hearing of a "split decision" -- will have multiple multiple orgasms.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




I wish you were right, but you're wrong. I can think of several states right off the top of my head who will immediately kill marriage and deny that those already married are still married.
Wyoming
Alabama
Kansas
Florida
Utah
will move the same day the Supremes rule against us.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




They'll move against us, yes, but they'll lose.
Over 60 percent of Americans today are okay with marriage equality. Most aren't ready to lobby for it, but they're okay with it. In a couple of years, the percentage will be 70 percent.
We've won.
Make me a fuckin' Martini now.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




"In the current marriage equality states, a split decision will not threaten anything." Yes, it will. If SCOTUS says, and they would have to, that there is NO constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, then ALL the federal court decisions that used that concept as a basis for overturning the respective state's ban would be rendered incorrect. That means, in every single state that has achieved ME through federal court ruling, a challenge to the status quo of ME will have legs. Even if in California the governor and AG decide to continue not enforcing the ban, some bigot will surely be able to bring it back to court and point to this hypothetical SCOTUS decision as reason why the original federal court decision enjoining the ban is incorrect and should be overruled. And they would win. This would effect AL, AK, AZ, CA (marriages 2013 and later), CO, FL, ID, IN, KS, MT, NV, NC, OK, OR, PA, SC, UT, VA, WV, WI, & WY.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




The monsters will attempt to once again permanently enshrine bigotry in those states, but they'll lose. It will be a long fought-out and bloody battle and in some cases there will be temporary losses for us, but the monsters will lose in the long run.
Be of good cheer.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




I'm of fine cheer. I don't buy into this idea of splitting the baby, and I'm about 95% sure we win this thing. If we don't, well, we'll see what kind of public reaction the GOP and their mouth-breathing bigot cotillion have to face then.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > another_steve  • 5 hours ago 




Too bad many same sex couples don't have the luxury of waiting that fight out.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rambie > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




There are many red states that have SSM now, by court ruling, that would change. Even if they are forced to recognize SSM conducted out of state, I know the CONs in at least my state, Utah, would jump at the chance to stop SSM by re-enacting the state amendment.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




but the point is that would be all but irrelevant if you can go to Vegas and that Vegas marriage must be recognized in Utah.
End of the day there would only need to be one state with legal SSM to have the effect of national legal SSM if all states must recognize legally performed SSMs.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




That'd still be a loss as a whole, making SSM a second class marriage by having to go to the state(s) where it's legal. "Separate but equal" has been tried before.
- It'd be a big huge mess as states started to revert to banning SSM again. BTW, Nevada would likely be one, they are more conservative than Vegas make the state seem.
- It'd put a burden on SS couples, forcing them to travel to a pro-equality state to get married (or move). Plus would be another, "separate but equal" type situation.
On the positive side, IMHO, it'd keep "teh gays" issue as a big policy position talking point for the 2016 election cycle (and beyond). The GOP'ers would be shown to be backwards as they truly are further alienating younger voters from them.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




I expect Nevada would start enforcing the ban again (I'd actually expect this of most if not all states who got ME thru federal court rulings). I'd then expect the Nevada legislature, even though now it's operated by the GOP, to send the question to the ballot after voting on it a second time. That process has already been started in the last legislative session, and it would likely make them feel better about what to do about the ban.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




Yes, putting peoples rights up for a majority vote should give us all warm-and-fuzzies.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




I guess it'd be better than Nevada enforcing the ban again and dropping the ballot initiative altogether...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




The irony of putting peoples rights up to a vote should leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
We'll see in a few months what happens when SCOTUS rules.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 5 hours ago 




It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if it were a choice between that and not having any access to reversing the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in a state like Nevada, I'd hold my nose and vote.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




Of course, I wasn't advocating that the vote should be pulled.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




















Avatar
Rich > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




That's a point I hadn't considered. A complete win for us would take the issue off the table, which would benefit the Republicans. A split would force them to discuss it.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Rich  • 6 hours ago 




Which would suck in many ways, but be good in others.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Ninja0980 > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




And the politics of it would mean this issue would drag on for Republicans, something they don't want.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




"And the politics of it would mean this issue would drag on for Republicans, something they don't want.
Fine.
It'll be another reason for progressives to rejoice in such a decision.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




Just - conservatives vote. Liberals only vote when the candidate on 'our' side is perfect.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




Sadly that seems true.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




You make excuses for Bill Perdue so you don't have a lot of room to talk.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I like Bill. I'm a liberal, not a progressive and it's a pleasure to see someone who actually has the courage of his convictions, even if I don't always agree with him.
There has to be room for more opinions than the mushy center right you represent.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




I want to add my voice to yours, fuow, re Bill Perdue.
I'm 95 percent opposed to what Bill says and stands for, but I respect his passion. Passion being the fuel of the universe. Passion being a sacred thing.
We should never -- none of us -- ever feel threatened by a passionate thought or a passionate belief.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > another_steve  • 4 hours ago 




Is single-mindedness now considered passion? I only ever see him post on one particular kind of topic. He's a singular voice to be sure, but not sure that's a compliment.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > mbmarquis69  • 4 hours ago 




Well, that one topic is his passion.
I have a singular passion for Brad Pitt.
Does that make me a bad person?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David L. Caster > mbmarquis69  • 4 hours ago 




I believe the expression you might be looking for is one trick pony.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
David L. Caster > fuow  • 4 hours ago 




Not to derail your thought process, but what, in your mind, is the difference between a liberal and a progressive?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




Bill is the person who encourages people to stay home and not vote, not me.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
John Masters > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




As I think about it, I believe there have been some rulings related to family planning clinics being closed and creating undue burden. That could apply here, but I'm betting on a split baby ruling also.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mike__in_Houston > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




I've believed all along, Steve, that the court was going to punt. I remember decisions I was following from when I was much younger--unfortunately I don't remember the specifics any more, but they probably had to do with righting injustices since that is what I get most excited about, as opposed to the "problems" of wealthy corporations--where they seemed like no-brainers to me, and yet the court found a way to punt on them. So those experiences inform my opinion about the eventual ruling here.
I posted here a couple of months ago that the decision would be one that would allow both sides to declare victory. Your term "semi-victory" is certainly more appropriate.
I haven't said it in so many words, and I've believed all along what you are saying here, that recognition will be our giant leap from this decision. There is, after all, that pesky full faith and credit clause.
Of course, absolute marriage equality is still our goal and I firmly believe that one day we will achieve just that, but the law moves in gradual steps and I think this would be a logical step for now. It would be one that, although not perfect, especially for couples who would have to struggle to meet the expense of going to another state to get married, would get us significantly closer to the goal. Another reason it is logical is that it does away with section 2 of DOMA, of which the court has already obliterated section 3 (section 1 is merely definitional).
Assuming this does indeed happen, it is ironic because this whole phase of the marriage argument started because so many people were terrified that Hawaii was going to grant marriage equality and the rest of the states would have to recognize marriages performed there.
Anyway, I am cautiously optimistic about the results of today's hearing. I still don't believe there is going to be an "all state laws, statutes, and amendments banning marriage are hereby overturned"-type ruling. At least not yet...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Mike__in_Houston  • 5 hours ago 




Saying "no" to question 1 in these cases is not punting. Punting is avoiding the question entirely somehow. They have no path to do so. They must decide if there IS or IS NOT a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. Saying "yes" to question 2 won't change that fact.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
another_steve > Mike__in_Houston  • 6 hours ago 




Thanks, Mike. You've put on paper (well, on a blog screen...lol) a lot of stuff I believe too but perhaps couldn't say as well as you have.
Of course we all want 100 percent marriage equality. In all states. But my innards tell me it's not going to happen in 2015.
I remember shaving while listening to the radio in 1986 when the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was announced. My heart sank. But I knew, on that day, that the setback was only temporary. I felt it in my bones.
And I feel it in my bones, today, that any loss to our community as a result of a split decision this coming June will be temporary only.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Rambie > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




Splitting the baby like this would be a draw at best, and make a mess of things. How many states where SSM is not being performed would move to deny SSM if the ruling goes this way?
This would be another "separate but equal" ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
cjs  • 7 hours ago 




But ... but ... marriage is ONLY about babies born between a man and a woman whose condom broke and she couldn't get Plan B the next day and blah blah blah something something abortion is wrong something something.
Or some such shit.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rich  • 6 hours ago 




Has Nate Silver made any predictions?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




I have a bad feeling about this. A very bad feeling. We need to start asking what happens if/when we lose.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




Keep in mind that the justices, specifically Justice Kennedy, made some important choices in the last year. They denied cert on appeals court cases in October of last year. 5-7 of them (presumably one of them being Kennedy) consistently denied motions to stay lower court rulings. In no way were these their only options. If Justice Kennedy were poised to vote against marriage equality, he would not have (presumably) voted to deny motions to stay lower court rulings in Florida, Alabama, etc. Unless you think that Kennedy was not one of those people, in which case, why would another conservative justice like Roberts or Alito choose to do so, knowing that it would cause chaos come this June? It doesn't make any sense at all to read the tea leaves this way.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Bruno  • 4 hours ago 




Couple that with Kennedy asking zero questions during oral on Question 2. Q2 is moot if Q1 is decided for equal protection/marriage equality.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




I think Kennedy's lack of questions for Q2 is telling, too. However, Q2 isn't totally moot if Q1 is decided for us. If they say "yes" on 1 and "no" on 2, then a state like Alabama would grudgingly have to allow SSM to be performed in-state, but could refuse to recognize marriages from out of state. Pointless, I know, but anything a state like that can do to dig in its heels...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Bruno  • 4 hours ago 




If Q1 (A14 - equal protection) goes for us, and a place like AL says OK, but no out of state recognition, then they would have to do that for opposite-sex marriage too, lest re-violate A14-EP. Yet not recognizing out of state marriage would violate Full Faith, yes/no?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




If they go yes on 1 and no on 2, then they've already said it's OK for a state to discriminate in terms of out of state recognition on the basis of the gender makeup of the married couple. It's already survived the Constitutional scrutiny. It wouldn't make much sense, but I do think they have to address both questions since some of the cases in front of them only involve recognition. I just really don't see any way they can split the baby in that direction.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Bruno  • 4 hours ago 




Well, that's a point.
Like you said, I don't see it going that way - no sense Q1: we're equal; Q2: we're not.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




In order to get to that Y-1 N-2, they'd have to have some convoluted reasoning. But SCOTUS is no stranger to that. In truth, I think even Roberts and possibly Alito would vote Y on 2.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




You are correct in that this is not a done deal. Kennedy did sound negative at times. And if marriage equality loses on both counts, all hell is going to break lose and this will become the most important issue in 2016 in the states such as Florida where Federal Courts have ruled that there is constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If these states will assert prior law and forbid same-sex marriages, what happens next? Will marriages already made be automatically disallowed? It can be assumed that new Constitutional amendments on a state level will be on the ballot. This is going to be a huge mess. This is why I think SCOTUS will rule for marriage equality since the Republican Party does not want this continuing as an issue.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MickinDetroit > Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




I think its unlikely they're going the other way. If they were sincerely questioning how to come down, they'd have stayed the lower court's decisions striking down state bans. if there was legitimate uncertainty on the vote count, they wouldnt let a few hundred thousand people enter into legal limbo. This is all dog and pony. I going with a baby splitting ruling....states can have bans, but they need to recognize out of state legally performed marriages.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I'm going with all or nothing.
 There really is no good way to make it so only 19 states have equality while other states don't.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




sure... i agree with your logic... but just saying that it only takes one to have de jure equality for the other 49 to have de facto equality if they all have to recognize that one state's legal SSMs.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Spliting the baby would be a loss.
 States like California and Oregon would have their bans put back in place and only the ballot box could fix it.
 And in other places, couples would have to drive hundreds of miles to get licenses.
 Many can't afford to do that because of monetary or physical reasons.
 It's all or nothing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Not saying it wouldn't be chaotic or burdensome. Just saying its not a wild ass outcome. It works that way now.... First cousins in love in Michigan have to travel hundreds of miles and spend money to marry because it's illegal for them to here.... but once they get married where it's legal, Michigan recognizes the marriage.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




There is a valid reason to deny first cousins from marrying, mainly genetics.
 None exist for same sex couples.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Perhaps, but there is no accommodation for infertile first cousins...just bans their marriages entirely.
The merits of the bans notwithstanding, if it comes down to squaring Kenedy's deference to the referendum process. He upheld the ban on AA in Michigan for many of the same reasons defenders of SSM bans argue today about those. It'll be interesting to see how he squares that circle.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 4 hours ago 




Bernard Friedman did it just when he held a trial at the district court level.
 In a sick way, he and Kennedy likely view AA as creating an uneven playing field, where the marrige bans create an uneven field for us.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
fuow > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I don't think they give a flying fuck about all those hundred of thousands of married gays.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I think they give a flying fuck about their reputation. Not staying the rulings below and then now reversing would make them look like a total hot mess....because it would create a shitshow of litigation the day after the SCOTUS ruling came down.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Exactly. Roberts will look like an idiot if this becomes the one case his "
Court" is remembered for, since he will be blamed for not biting in the bud several years ago by overturning lower district court rulings.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Even if they "split the baby," it would still be reversing the lower court rulings. They would all have been decided on faulty legal reasoning. There is no way for them to split the baby here without causing a huge amount of havoc and make themselves look like a total hot mess.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




probably true, but in the end the outcome is de facto marriage equality if no state can refuse to recognize a legally performed marriage.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




My definition of equality doesn't entail one group of people having to travel possibly 1000's of miles (Alaska) to get married while another group can walk or drive to city hall.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




Same here... but I'm not a SCOTUS justice and there are many decisions that only half solve problems or result in more litigation.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
fuow > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Except, they don't care.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




if they didn't care, they'd have denied cert on any of the appeals.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
John Masters > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Kennedy loves him some states rights, so I've said all along this was far from certain, and that we could expect him to try to figure a way to split the baby. This is exactly how he could do that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




From Ari Ezra Waldman
Justice Kennedy did not ask a single question on Question 2. This could
be a tip of that hat to where Justice Kennedy is leaning. Question 2 is
irrelevant if the Court decides that States cannot ban gays from
marrying. That Justice Kennedy didn't have any questions -- that he
wasn't concerned about any legal issue -- may suggest that he doesn't
need to address Question 2.

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




Good point. I hope it's true, but it could also be that Question 2 is so obviously covered by full faith and credit, that it a settled issue in his mind. But I hope AEW, a much wiser person than me, is right.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MickinDetroit > John Masters  • 6 hours ago 




exactly... Kennedy spouts a whole lot of scary stuff in the Affirmative action case from Michigan about the deference that should be given to voter referendum.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > MickinDetroit  • 4 hours ago 




Kennedy overturned a referendum by the people of Colorado in Romer vs. Evans. He's not afraid to have his deference to states' rights overcome by justice.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




So did Bernard Friedman, the district court judge who struck down the gay marriage ban in MI.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rich > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




While that would be less than perfect, it would, for all practical purposes, make marriage equality legal everywhere. It would be a chickenshit decision, but they've done that before.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Rich  • 5 hours ago 




No it wouldn't.
 Several of the state bans would be back in play, including California and Oregon's.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Ninja0980  • 2 hours ago 




But they would have to recognize out of state marriages. As mentioned, I don't think it is the right decision.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
fuow  • 7 hours ago 




Since everyone else is putting in their two cents, here's mine.
For us:
RBG, notorious.
Sotomayor
Kagan
Breyer
Against us:
Scalia
Thomas
Worried about children and, thus, possibly for us;
Alito
Kennedy
Will only vote for us to try to prevent our getting protected status later by writing majority the majority opinion as narrowly as possible:
Roberts
I think we have a 60/40 chance of losing. That's the most optimistic I've ever been.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




I think we have an 80% chance of winning, since SCOTUS is ultimately guided by politics, and an anti marriage equality ruling this is going to be a huge huge mess for the Republican party on the State and Federal level. 60% of the US public supports marriage equality now, a number that continues to rise especially among the 18 - 34 group
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
HoneyBoySmith > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I think we have a 60/40 chance of losing.
This is unclear. Are you saying that you give us a 60% chance of losing?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > HoneyBoySmith  • 6 hours ago 




Unclear? Oh - right, sorry. Thinking in German. American English tends to put things the other way round.
I think we have a 40% chance of winning at best.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I'd agree with you if they stayed the lower courts prior to today. Letting those bans fall was a bit of a tell. I sincerely doubt a conservative institution like SCOTUS would allow for the chaos that will now be unleashed in states that would see a re-institution of the bans.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Let's just hope there isn't a secret report out there showing that focus-group analysis of that chaos shows a clear advantage for the GOP in 2016...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > BobSF_94117  • 6 hours ago 




You think this issue will help out Republican Senators in purple or blue states?
 On the contrary, this would be a nightmare for them.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I've debated this in my head a lot recently. On the one hand, the Republicans don't have any real policies to go try and sell, so way too many are still counting on a good old culture war issue. The problem is, in many places, this one isn't working out so well anymore. So I finally come down on the side of everyone in the Republican party with the exception of few true believers like Cruz and Santorum would prefer the issue just go away, red or blue state, and the SCOTUS can make that happen.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




Well think about this. What is it is Bush or Rubio vs. Hillary? These two will be forced to take an anti-marriage equality stance in the general election, potentially pissing off 18-34 year olds who will go register and get out to vote - this is the same group that was so important to Obama's victory and is not overly enthusiastic about Hillary. - The Republicans now have a wedge issue against them that they will not want. Even mealy-mouthed Rand Paul who has taken both sides, and is doing well with 18 - 34 year olds in the polls, will be forced to be anti marriage equality or appear to be totally spineless in the election since he is moving so much to the right in primaries.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




We're in agreement I think Eddi. My point is, I think Republicans would, for the most part, prefer that the SCOTUS settle the issue. Sure, there will be some people screaming for a Constitutional Amendment, but those people would never vote for Hillary anyway, so the Republicans can kind of just shrug their shoulders and not say much about it at all.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Blue states don't matter. In purple states it would turn out the conservative base like we've never seen before.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




The conservative base, which tends to be older, votes anyway. It is younger voters that needs their asses kicked to be motivated to vote. And this is a key wedge issue that benefits democrats.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




I'd feel better about it if you could point to one state where the pro-SSM get-out-the-vote thingy happened.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




Maine, November 2012. Referendum 1. Marriage Equality won by popular vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




Cons turnout pretty much no matter what - there's ALWAYS some cortisol addled panic brewing.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MickinDetroit > BobSF_94117  • 6 hours ago 




have to agree there. A win in any capacity for us is going to turn out the hard right base like 2010.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




2016 is an election year, which means our base will be out in force as well.
Simply look to Minnesota for proof of that.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




our base won't be as motivated by HRC.
 HRC doesn't engender that kind of energy. It's pathetic this is the best the Ds have to offer the country.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




You are correct when it comes to 18 - 34 year old voters. Hillary is not polling well with this group, but is doing very well with older voters. And younger voters support marriage equality by huge margins all over the USA
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




Marriage equality wont be on the ballot though. I have this sinking feeling that 2016 is going to be much more midterm turn out from our side
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




They will vote anyway, and are clearly Republican. They turn out to vote in elections. Our side only votes in Presidential Election years in great numbers. I am not worried about this.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




There are elections where GOP base turnout hasn't been so good, like 2006. I find the most motivating factor for a base is if they're angry and who at. You're correct regarding 2016; with Obama having been in office for 8 years, the GOP base will be out in droves no matter what. It's the Dems who may have to worry a little more this time about turnout.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MickinDetroit > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




Sure... but I'm here in an allegedly "blue" state that voted overwhelmingly for the most restrictive SSM ban in the country in a POTUS year with a D Governor and a D legislature (at the time) relying on gay issues to turn out our base is not a particularly good precedent.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




Michigan, home of my beloved UM. The vote in Michigan on the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages was 2004, when it passed by 59%. That was ages ago. I do not know of a recent poll, but getting 41% for marriage equality in 2004 would translate to a majority today! I found a 2013 poll that says 56% support marriage equality in Michigan, and even these numbers are old.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
John Masters > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I'm not sure I agree. If they rule in June, that's a pretty decent amount of time before Nov. 2016, and everyone will be getting married, and a few cake bakers and photographers will have to learn about public accommodation laws, but most folks will be on to something else. The Benghazi report from Congress won't come out until October 2016, so this will be a distant memory by then. I mean sure, a few Republicans will be promising a Constitutional Amendment to show those stupid justices a thing or two...but that's only going to carry them a little ways. The right may turn out, but it'll be to defeat Hillary, not to try to reverse the marriage ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




I think the only people pissed about marriage equality will be driven to vote in 2016 no matter what. Hilary wasn't ever going to win Alabama, and the right-wing Iowans and Virginians who show up to the polls would have done so anyway. It will be a tangential issue that won't really steer the election in any meaningful way.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




Agreed. You made my point more succinctly. The hard right will always vote. This won't make a difference as to whether or not they show up at the polls. The only thing that would keep them home is if no Democrat were on the ballot.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
Bruno > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




In 2016, yeah. But in 2006, I think a lot of them stayed home because Bush was still in power and there just wasn't the motivation. That year saw Dems sweep into Congress and state houses and governorships. And a couple of anti-gay marriage initiatives in conservative states only squeaked by (South Dakota and Virginia) or failed (Arizona). It says a lot about how most Americans sit on their ass when things *seem* good in their minds.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




The 2016 will depend on Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and North Carolina. These are the key swing states, and except for North Carolina they voted for Obama last time. The Republicans need to pick up a majority of these states to win, and hold on to Arizona and Georgia which may be competitive for Democrats.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
fuow > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I hope you're right.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




Good! We were thinking that you might be engaging in Schadenfreude by scaring us! :) BTW, Germany really needs to get their act together and stop being the only major country left in Western Europe (along with Italy) that is dragging their heels on this!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




What? You don't consider Andorra a major country?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Rene Salinas  • 7 hours ago 




Well this makes me feel a bit better.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/buzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html#disqus_thread












  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Forget Iran, Iraq, Ukraine: This is Where War WWIII Starts  Money Morning 




Have you ever Googled yourself? This site reveals more info!  Instant Checkmate 




35 Tattoos Every Basic Girl Wishes She Had  Brainjet.com 




The Highest Paying Cash Back Credit Card Has Just Hit The Market  Next Advisor 



Also on JoeMyGod

Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  118 comments 


Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex …  43 comments 


 Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS   39 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   211 comments 






 147 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Kennedy talked about the gap between Lawrence and Obergefell twice being the same as the gap between Brown and Loving.
 And since he wrote the Lawrence, that is telling for a lot of people about how he'll rule.
 That and he was NOT friendly to the state's arguments in any way shape or form, especially when it came to same sex couples raising children.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mr. E  • 6 hours ago 




Everyone needs to calm the hell down and stop spazzing out about losing and/or "splitting the baby"! If the Court had ANY doubts about marriage equality and its spread, they had their chance to stop it in October! They didn't, and by letting it move forward in those circuits, the 9th, Florida, and Alabama it's shown how things are going. I predict a 5-4 ruling in our favor, Kennedy has made his intentions clear (he likes to play the "swing vote" card up a lot, like he did in Windsor). Roberts was a total douche and anyone who still had hopes of him ruling for us, got a rude wake up call today. Now to wait until June :) relax, people
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Christian Tarr > Mr. E  • 4 hours ago 




I really hope you're right :)
I just find myself being super cynical and pessimistic over this. Historical precedent kinda colors all of this, despite the recent advances for the past few years.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




RE Geidner...you sure wouldn't get that understanding from the haters. A bunch of them spoke after they left the courtroom (including our beloved Ryan Anderson) and he was practically glowing about the questions from Roberts. I hate this.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




Same thing happened after DOMA.
 The haters were crowing about a victory right up until the moment the ruling in our favor came down, won't be any different here.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




*fingers crossed* I hope you're right.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Gotta keep that money train rolling.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd20036 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Kind of like the 2012 election
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gene > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




ahhh...in my discomfort, I forget...and, you are RIGHT...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Joe in PA  • 5 hours ago 




They are of the Rovian mindset: That they can create reality by declaring it, facts be damned...which admittedly works on the incurious but likely not on a majority of the SC Justices.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > GreatLakeSailor  • 2 hours ago 




Like Rove convincing most of Congress that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for invading it?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
John30013 > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




Just like Rmoney was gonna win Ohio, hands down.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D > Joe in PA  • 5 hours ago 




And that’s because they approach SCOTUS with the same lying approach that they use for everything else, they over hype anything that might possible be supportive of them while dismissing everything else. They are selectively only picking out the hard questions for our side while ignoring the questioning of the states.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Harley  • 7 hours ago 




Yea, but what does Nate Silver have to say about it.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate > Harley  • 7 hours ago 




Lol!
But his statistical methodology does not apply here at all.
He has no data to work with. Methinks he knows no more than any of us on this question. Now when 2016 arrives, he'll be my main source for predictions.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KT  • 7 hours ago 




Chris Geidner has been covering SCOTUS for Buzzfeed for a while now so I trust he has a better read on the Justices than casual observers. Still, its going to be a long two months waiting for this decision.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JCF  • 7 hours ago 




I'm feeling much better after hearing Kenji Yushino's (sp) take (on MSNBC) re Kennedy. Pull quote: "Obergefell could be to Lawrence (v Texas: which KENNEDY WROTE!), as Loving (v Virginia) was to Brown (v Board of Ed)." In other words, the natural progression of civil rights. :-)
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
pj > JCF  • 4 hours ago 




kenji always calms me down. very thoughtful guy. is he single....
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




I worry about predictions. They can be wrong. Just ask President Dewey.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ahistoric > Michael Smith  • 5 hours ago 




Was he gay?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
brian > Ahistoric  • 4 hours ago 




Very!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > brian  • 2 hours ago 




Yeah didn't Alice Roosevelt Longworth say Dewey looks like both grooms on top of a gay wedding cake?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Todd20036 > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




and RMoney
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robincho > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




Very true, man...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




I am very encouraged by what we have seen today and I think
it falls under the expected model. I wouldn’t count Roberts out but I’m also not worrying too much on that point regardless.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




I am as well.
 I know we have to worry a little but I don't get the negativity here and elsewhere.
Kennedy was much harsher on the states then he was on our side.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I think we will win 5-4 as well but I have to agree with what Ari Waldman and others have said.
 She has done amazing things for our side but Mary Bonauto did NOT perform well for parts of these arguments, hence the reason Breyer had to throw the lifeline with a couple of the questions he asked.
 If nothing else, our side knew what Kennedy was going to ask since we had the Prop 8 case to go from.
 She should have been better prepared for the devil's advocate questions from him then she was.
 All that aside, I think we will have a 5-4 ruling in our favor striking down the bans.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Owen > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I really wish Olson and Boies had been arguing all of this case.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




This case will not rest on the oral arguments presented in two or three hours before the Justices. There are literally volumes of arguments in scholarly legal briefs which will undoubtedly have far more impact than what amounts to an academic exercise demonstrating attorneys' abilities to "think on their feet." Considering the precedents of Lawrence and Loving and Windsor, it would baffle and amaze me if this court could possibly arrive at any conclusion aside from a favorable one for the LGBT community.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > j.martindale  • 4 hours ago 




Splitting the baby, by finding a state right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples or not recognize marriages performed in another state, is not out of the question. I'd like to believe that we will get something as good or better than 5-4 making marriage equality legal everywhere in the US and its territories. I'm not going to set my expectations that high just yet.
The problem with a question of this magnitude is that it will be very hard to make the ruling narrow, or rather, proceed incrementally in hopes that public opinion will shift so as to complete the transition democratically—one cannot jump the Grand Canyon by hopping on one foot.
The court has to pull up its big kid pants on this one and it really is trying to keep M.E. from turning into an only slightly less intense Roe, as tenuous as that analogy may be.
From our perspective, it seems this should be easy. From the point of view of SCOTUS, they have to be able to convince themselves, or at least five of their members have to be convinced, that there is a legal, Constitution-based route to such a decision that will not create more problems.
This is a very strange court, reflecting the profound contrasts among the opinions of the people that live in the US. It is an interesting time in our history as a nation and the adaptability of our laws with respect to our ideals is clearly under stress in many ways.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Robincho > Ninja0980  • 3 hours ago 




Striking down the bans on the banns!...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GreatLakeSailor  • 6 hours ago 




Ari Ezra Waldman is posting - AEW is the BEST commenter on the legal fight for Marriage Equality. Authoritive, accessible, insightful.
Part 1: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
Part 2: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
Part 3: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
Edit:
Part 4: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a split decision. No constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.
A split decision will semi-satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives on the court. All segments of the American public will be able to declare semi-victory.
Look for it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




A ruling that makes same sex couples have to drive hundreds of miles to get marriage licenses is a loss, period.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I'm talking politics here -- not "reason" or "equity."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




It'd be a draw for marriage equality, but put it your way, it'd be a WIN for us long term. The GOP'ers would have to keep the issue as part of their forefront positions continuing to make them look as ass-backward as they truly are.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 7 hours ago 




It would not be a draw. It would set us back for decades to come. ME would disappear quickly in conservative states like Oklahoma, and maybe eventually even Pennsylvania. The status of existing marriages in 19+ states, including many in California, would be in flux. And couples would have to travel out of state to marry.
IMO, this scenario is highly unlikely.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




Indeed, upholding state bans is a loss for our side, simple as that.
 Many couples don't have the resources to travel hundreds of miles to get married and in places like California or Oregon, the bigots could force this issue on the ballot again.
It's all or nothing at this point, period.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
canoebum > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Not only that, but the hater states would devise all kinds of legislative obstacles for couples wed out of state who are looking for recognition. I can easily see them imposing ridiculous fees for a recognition 'certificate', and waiting periods, and onerous paperwork requirements. The evil games they could play would be endless. You'll see requirements like, we'll recognize your out of state marriage after a 2 years residency following the marriage, even if you've been a lifelong state resident, still a 2 year wait. Other similar bullshit.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Refugay > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




It would also create a nightmare scenario for corporations and the IRS
.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Refugay  • 6 hours ago 




The corporations being on our side may be our salvation. This court never met a corporation it didn't love.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rich > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




I hope you are right. We need a complete victory.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
another_steve > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




Too many people in the marriage equality states already know / respect / love married queer couples or queer couples planning on getting married. That train has already left the station.
In the current marriage equality states, a split decision will not threaten anything.
If anything, the caterers and wedding planners in the marriage equality states -- upon hearing of a "split decision" -- will have multiple multiple orgasms.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




I wish you were right, but you're wrong. I can think of several states right off the top of my head who will immediately kill marriage and deny that those already married are still married.
Wyoming
Alabama
Kansas
Florida
Utah
will move the same day the Supremes rule against us.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




They'll move against us, yes, but they'll lose.
Over 60 percent of Americans today are okay with marriage equality. Most aren't ready to lobby for it, but they're okay with it. In a couple of years, the percentage will be 70 percent.
We've won.
Make me a fuckin' Martini now.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




"In the current marriage equality states, a split decision will not threaten anything." Yes, it will. If SCOTUS says, and they would have to, that there is NO constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, then ALL the federal court decisions that used that concept as a basis for overturning the respective state's ban would be rendered incorrect. That means, in every single state that has achieved ME through federal court ruling, a challenge to the status quo of ME will have legs. Even if in California the governor and AG decide to continue not enforcing the ban, some bigot will surely be able to bring it back to court and point to this hypothetical SCOTUS decision as reason why the original federal court decision enjoining the ban is incorrect and should be overruled. And they would win. This would effect AL, AK, AZ, CA (marriages 2013 and later), CO, FL, ID, IN, KS, MT, NV, NC, OK, OR, PA, SC, UT, VA, WV, WI, & WY.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




The monsters will attempt to once again permanently enshrine bigotry in those states, but they'll lose. It will be a long fought-out and bloody battle and in some cases there will be temporary losses for us, but the monsters will lose in the long run.
Be of good cheer.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




I'm of fine cheer. I don't buy into this idea of splitting the baby, and I'm about 95% sure we win this thing. If we don't, well, we'll see what kind of public reaction the GOP and their mouth-breathing bigot cotillion have to face then.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > another_steve  • 5 hours ago 




Too bad many same sex couples don't have the luxury of waiting that fight out.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rambie > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




There are many red states that have SSM now, by court ruling, that would change. Even if they are forced to recognize SSM conducted out of state, I know the CONs in at least my state, Utah, would jump at the chance to stop SSM by re-enacting the state amendment.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




but the point is that would be all but irrelevant if you can go to Vegas and that Vegas marriage must be recognized in Utah.
End of the day there would only need to be one state with legal SSM to have the effect of national legal SSM if all states must recognize legally performed SSMs.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




That'd still be a loss as a whole, making SSM a second class marriage by having to go to the state(s) where it's legal. "Separate but equal" has been tried before.
- It'd be a big huge mess as states started to revert to banning SSM again. BTW, Nevada would likely be one, they are more conservative than Vegas make the state seem.
- It'd put a burden on SS couples, forcing them to travel to a pro-equality state to get married (or move). Plus would be another, "separate but equal" type situation.
On the positive side, IMHO, it'd keep "teh gays" issue as a big policy position talking point for the 2016 election cycle (and beyond). The GOP'ers would be shown to be backwards as they truly are further alienating younger voters from them.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




I expect Nevada would start enforcing the ban again (I'd actually expect this of most if not all states who got ME thru federal court rulings). I'd then expect the Nevada legislature, even though now it's operated by the GOP, to send the question to the ballot after voting on it a second time. That process has already been started in the last legislative session, and it would likely make them feel better about what to do about the ban.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




Yes, putting peoples rights up for a majority vote should give us all warm-and-fuzzies.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




I guess it'd be better than Nevada enforcing the ban again and dropping the ballot initiative altogether...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




The irony of putting peoples rights up to a vote should leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
We'll see in a few months what happens when SCOTUS rules.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Rambie  • 5 hours ago 




It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if it were a choice between that and not having any access to reversing the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in a state like Nevada, I'd hold my nose and vote.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




Of course, I wasn't advocating that the vote should be pulled.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




















Avatar
Rich > Rambie  • 6 hours ago 




That's a point I hadn't considered. A complete win for us would take the issue off the table, which would benefit the Republicans. A split would force them to discuss it.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > Rich  • 6 hours ago 




Which would suck in many ways, but be good in others.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Ninja0980 > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




And the politics of it would mean this issue would drag on for Republicans, something they don't want.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




"And the politics of it would mean this issue would drag on for Republicans, something they don't want.
Fine.
It'll be another reason for progressives to rejoice in such a decision.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




Just - conservatives vote. Liberals only vote when the candidate on 'our' side is perfect.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




Sadly that seems true.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




You make excuses for Bill Perdue so you don't have a lot of room to talk.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I like Bill. I'm a liberal, not a progressive and it's a pleasure to see someone who actually has the courage of his convictions, even if I don't always agree with him.
There has to be room for more opinions than the mushy center right you represent.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




I want to add my voice to yours, fuow, re Bill Perdue.
I'm 95 percent opposed to what Bill says and stands for, but I respect his passion. Passion being the fuel of the universe. Passion being a sacred thing.
We should never -- none of us -- ever feel threatened by a passionate thought or a passionate belief.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > another_steve  • 4 hours ago 




Is single-mindedness now considered passion? I only ever see him post on one particular kind of topic. He's a singular voice to be sure, but not sure that's a compliment.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
another_steve > mbmarquis69  • 4 hours ago 




Well, that one topic is his passion.
I have a singular passion for Brad Pitt.
Does that make me a bad person?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David L. Caster > mbmarquis69  • 4 hours ago 




I believe the expression you might be looking for is one trick pony.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
David L. Caster > fuow  • 4 hours ago 




Not to derail your thought process, but what, in your mind, is the difference between a liberal and a progressive?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




Bill is the person who encourages people to stay home and not vote, not me.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
John Masters > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




As I think about it, I believe there have been some rulings related to family planning clinics being closed and creating undue burden. That could apply here, but I'm betting on a split baby ruling also.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mike__in_Houston > another_steve  • 6 hours ago 




I've believed all along, Steve, that the court was going to punt. I remember decisions I was following from when I was much younger--unfortunately I don't remember the specifics any more, but they probably had to do with righting injustices since that is what I get most excited about, as opposed to the "problems" of wealthy corporations--where they seemed like no-brainers to me, and yet the court found a way to punt on them. So those experiences inform my opinion about the eventual ruling here.
I posted here a couple of months ago that the decision would be one that would allow both sides to declare victory. Your term "semi-victory" is certainly more appropriate.
I haven't said it in so many words, and I've believed all along what you are saying here, that recognition will be our giant leap from this decision. There is, after all, that pesky full faith and credit clause.
Of course, absolute marriage equality is still our goal and I firmly believe that one day we will achieve just that, but the law moves in gradual steps and I think this would be a logical step for now. It would be one that, although not perfect, especially for couples who would have to struggle to meet the expense of going to another state to get married, would get us significantly closer to the goal. Another reason it is logical is that it does away with section 2 of DOMA, of which the court has already obliterated section 3 (section 1 is merely definitional).
Assuming this does indeed happen, it is ironic because this whole phase of the marriage argument started because so many people were terrified that Hawaii was going to grant marriage equality and the rest of the states would have to recognize marriages performed there.
Anyway, I am cautiously optimistic about the results of today's hearing. I still don't believe there is going to be an "all state laws, statutes, and amendments banning marriage are hereby overturned"-type ruling. At least not yet...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Mike__in_Houston  • 5 hours ago 




Saying "no" to question 1 in these cases is not punting. Punting is avoiding the question entirely somehow. They have no path to do so. They must decide if there IS or IS NOT a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. Saying "yes" to question 2 won't change that fact.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
another_steve > Mike__in_Houston  • 6 hours ago 




Thanks, Mike. You've put on paper (well, on a blog screen...lol) a lot of stuff I believe too but perhaps couldn't say as well as you have.
Of course we all want 100 percent marriage equality. In all states. But my innards tell me it's not going to happen in 2015.
I remember shaving while listening to the radio in 1986 when the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was announced. My heart sank. But I knew, on that day, that the setback was only temporary. I felt it in my bones.
And I feel it in my bones, today, that any loss to our community as a result of a split decision this coming June will be temporary only.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Rambie > another_steve  • 7 hours ago 




Splitting the baby like this would be a draw at best, and make a mess of things. How many states where SSM is not being performed would move to deny SSM if the ruling goes this way?
This would be another "separate but equal" ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
cjs  • 7 hours ago 




But ... but ... marriage is ONLY about babies born between a man and a woman whose condom broke and she couldn't get Plan B the next day and blah blah blah something something abortion is wrong something something.
Or some such shit.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rich  • 6 hours ago 




Has Nate Silver made any predictions?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




I have a bad feeling about this. A very bad feeling. We need to start asking what happens if/when we lose.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




Keep in mind that the justices, specifically Justice Kennedy, made some important choices in the last year. They denied cert on appeals court cases in October of last year. 5-7 of them (presumably one of them being Kennedy) consistently denied motions to stay lower court rulings. In no way were these their only options. If Justice Kennedy were poised to vote against marriage equality, he would not have (presumably) voted to deny motions to stay lower court rulings in Florida, Alabama, etc. Unless you think that Kennedy was not one of those people, in which case, why would another conservative justice like Roberts or Alito choose to do so, knowing that it would cause chaos come this June? It doesn't make any sense at all to read the tea leaves this way.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Bruno  • 4 hours ago 




Couple that with Kennedy asking zero questions during oral on Question 2. Q2 is moot if Q1 is decided for equal protection/marriage equality.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




I think Kennedy's lack of questions for Q2 is telling, too. However, Q2 isn't totally moot if Q1 is decided for us. If they say "yes" on 1 and "no" on 2, then a state like Alabama would grudgingly have to allow SSM to be performed in-state, but could refuse to recognize marriages from out of state. Pointless, I know, but anything a state like that can do to dig in its heels...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Bruno  • 4 hours ago 




If Q1 (A14 - equal protection) goes for us, and a place like AL says OK, but no out of state recognition, then they would have to do that for opposite-sex marriage too, lest re-violate A14-EP. Yet not recognizing out of state marriage would violate Full Faith, yes/no?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




If they go yes on 1 and no on 2, then they've already said it's OK for a state to discriminate in terms of out of state recognition on the basis of the gender makeup of the married couple. It's already survived the Constitutional scrutiny. It wouldn't make much sense, but I do think they have to address both questions since some of the cases in front of them only involve recognition. I just really don't see any way they can split the baby in that direction.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Bruno  • 4 hours ago 




Well, that's a point.
Like you said, I don't see it going that way - no sense Q1: we're equal; Q2: we're not.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




In order to get to that Y-1 N-2, they'd have to have some convoluted reasoning. But SCOTUS is no stranger to that. In truth, I think even Roberts and possibly Alito would vote Y on 2.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




You are correct in that this is not a done deal. Kennedy did sound negative at times. And if marriage equality loses on both counts, all hell is going to break lose and this will become the most important issue in 2016 in the states such as Florida where Federal Courts have ruled that there is constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If these states will assert prior law and forbid same-sex marriages, what happens next? Will marriages already made be automatically disallowed? It can be assumed that new Constitutional amendments on a state level will be on the ballot. This is going to be a huge mess. This is why I think SCOTUS will rule for marriage equality since the Republican Party does not want this continuing as an issue.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MickinDetroit > Quagmired  • 6 hours ago 




I think its unlikely they're going the other way. If they were sincerely questioning how to come down, they'd have stayed the lower court's decisions striking down state bans. if there was legitimate uncertainty on the vote count, they wouldnt let a few hundred thousand people enter into legal limbo. This is all dog and pony. I going with a baby splitting ruling....states can have bans, but they need to recognize out of state legally performed marriages.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I'm going with all or nothing.
 There really is no good way to make it so only 19 states have equality while other states don't.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




sure... i agree with your logic... but just saying that it only takes one to have de jure equality for the other 49 to have de facto equality if they all have to recognize that one state's legal SSMs.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Spliting the baby would be a loss.
 States like California and Oregon would have their bans put back in place and only the ballot box could fix it.
 And in other places, couples would have to drive hundreds of miles to get licenses.
 Many can't afford to do that because of monetary or physical reasons.
 It's all or nothing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Not saying it wouldn't be chaotic or burdensome. Just saying its not a wild ass outcome. It works that way now.... First cousins in love in Michigan have to travel hundreds of miles and spend money to marry because it's illegal for them to here.... but once they get married where it's legal, Michigan recognizes the marriage.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




There is a valid reason to deny first cousins from marrying, mainly genetics.
 None exist for same sex couples.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Perhaps, but there is no accommodation for infertile first cousins...just bans their marriages entirely.
The merits of the bans notwithstanding, if it comes down to squaring Kenedy's deference to the referendum process. He upheld the ban on AA in Michigan for many of the same reasons defenders of SSM bans argue today about those. It'll be interesting to see how he squares that circle.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 4 hours ago 




Bernard Friedman did it just when he held a trial at the district court level.
 In a sick way, he and Kennedy likely view AA as creating an uneven playing field, where the marrige bans create an uneven field for us.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
fuow > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I don't think they give a flying fuck about all those hundred of thousands of married gays.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I think they give a flying fuck about their reputation. Not staying the rulings below and then now reversing would make them look like a total hot mess....because it would create a shitshow of litigation the day after the SCOTUS ruling came down.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Exactly. Roberts will look like an idiot if this becomes the one case his "
Court" is remembered for, since he will be blamed for not biting in the bud several years ago by overturning lower district court rulings.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Even if they "split the baby," it would still be reversing the lower court rulings. They would all have been decided on faulty legal reasoning. There is no way for them to split the baby here without causing a huge amount of havoc and make themselves look like a total hot mess.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Bruno  • 6 hours ago 




probably true, but in the end the outcome is de facto marriage equality if no state can refuse to recognize a legally performed marriage.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




My definition of equality doesn't entail one group of people having to travel possibly 1000's of miles (Alaska) to get married while another group can walk or drive to city hall.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




Same here... but I'm not a SCOTUS justice and there are many decisions that only half solve problems or result in more litigation.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
fuow > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Except, they don't care.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




if they didn't care, they'd have denied cert on any of the appeals.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
John Masters > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Kennedy loves him some states rights, so I've said all along this was far from certain, and that we could expect him to try to figure a way to split the baby. This is exactly how he could do that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




From Ari Ezra Waldman
Justice Kennedy did not ask a single question on Question 2. This could
be a tip of that hat to where Justice Kennedy is leaning. Question 2 is
irrelevant if the Court decides that States cannot ban gays from
marrying. That Justice Kennedy didn't have any questions -- that he
wasn't concerned about any legal issue -- may suggest that he doesn't
need to address Question 2.

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > GreatLakeSailor  • 4 hours ago 




Good point. I hope it's true, but it could also be that Question 2 is so obviously covered by full faith and credit, that it a settled issue in his mind. But I hope AEW, a much wiser person than me, is right.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MickinDetroit > John Masters  • 6 hours ago 




exactly... Kennedy spouts a whole lot of scary stuff in the Affirmative action case from Michigan about the deference that should be given to voter referendum.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > MickinDetroit  • 4 hours ago 




Kennedy overturned a referendum by the people of Colorado in Romer vs. Evans. He's not afraid to have his deference to states' rights overcome by justice.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




So did Bernard Friedman, the district court judge who struck down the gay marriage ban in MI.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Rich > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




While that would be less than perfect, it would, for all practical purposes, make marriage equality legal everywhere. It would be a chickenshit decision, but they've done that before.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Rich  • 5 hours ago 




No it wouldn't.
 Several of the state bans would be back in play, including California and Oregon's.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Ninja0980  • 2 hours ago 




But they would have to recognize out of state marriages. As mentioned, I don't think it is the right decision.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
fuow  • 7 hours ago 




Since everyone else is putting in their two cents, here's mine.
For us:
RBG, notorious.
Sotomayor
Kagan
Breyer
Against us:
Scalia
Thomas
Worried about children and, thus, possibly for us;
Alito
Kennedy
Will only vote for us to try to prevent our getting protected status later by writing majority the majority opinion as narrowly as possible:
Roberts
I think we have a 60/40 chance of losing. That's the most optimistic I've ever been.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I think we have an 80% chance of winning, since SCOTUS is ultimately guided by politics, and an anti marriage equality ruling this is going to be a huge huge mess for the Republican party on the State and Federal level. 60% of the US public supports marriage equality now, a number that continues to rise especially among the 18 - 34 group
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
HoneyBoySmith > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I think we have a 60/40 chance of losing.
This is unclear. Are you saying that you give us a 60% chance of losing?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fuow > HoneyBoySmith  • 6 hours ago 




Unclear? Oh - right, sorry. Thinking in German. American English tends to put things the other way round.
I think we have a 40% chance of winning at best.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > fuow  • 6 hours ago 




I'd agree with you if they stayed the lower courts prior to today. Letting those bans fall was a bit of a tell. I sincerely doubt a conservative institution like SCOTUS would allow for the chaos that will now be unleashed in states that would see a re-institution of the bans.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




Let's just hope there isn't a secret report out there showing that focus-group analysis of that chaos shows a clear advantage for the GOP in 2016...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > BobSF_94117  • 6 hours ago 




You think this issue will help out Republican Senators in purple or blue states?
 On the contrary, this would be a nightmare for them.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I've debated this in my head a lot recently. On the one hand, the Republicans don't have any real policies to go try and sell, so way too many are still counting on a good old culture war issue. The problem is, in many places, this one isn't working out so well anymore. So I finally come down on the side of everyone in the Republican party with the exception of few true believers like Cruz and Santorum would prefer the issue just go away, red or blue state, and the SCOTUS can make that happen.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




Well think about this. What is it is Bush or Rubio vs. Hillary? These two will be forced to take an anti-marriage equality stance in the general election, potentially pissing off 18-34 year olds who will go register and get out to vote - this is the same group that was so important to Obama's victory and is not overly enthusiastic about Hillary. - The Republicans now have a wedge issue against them that they will not want. Even mealy-mouthed Rand Paul who has taken both sides, and is doing well with 18 - 34 year olds in the polls, will be forced to be anti marriage equality or appear to be totally spineless in the election since he is moving so much to the right in primaries.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




We're in agreement I think Eddi. My point is, I think Republicans would, for the most part, prefer that the SCOTUS settle the issue. Sure, there will be some people screaming for a Constitutional Amendment, but those people would never vote for Hillary anyway, so the Republicans can kind of just shrug their shoulders and not say much about it at all.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




Blue states don't matter. In purple states it would turn out the conservative base like we've never seen before.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




The conservative base, which tends to be older, votes anyway. It is younger voters that needs their asses kicked to be motivated to vote. And this is a key wedge issue that benefits democrats.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




I'd feel better about it if you could point to one state where the pro-SSM get-out-the-vote thingy happened.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




Maine, November 2012. Referendum 1. Marriage Equality won by popular vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




Cons turnout pretty much no matter what - there's ALWAYS some cortisol addled panic brewing.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MickinDetroit > BobSF_94117  • 6 hours ago 




have to agree there. A win in any capacity for us is going to turn out the hard right base like 2010.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




2016 is an election year, which means our base will be out in force as well.
Simply look to Minnesota for proof of that.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




our base won't be as motivated by HRC.
 HRC doesn't engender that kind of energy. It's pathetic this is the best the Ds have to offer the country.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




You are correct when it comes to 18 - 34 year old voters. Hillary is not polling well with this group, but is doing very well with older voters. And younger voters support marriage equality by huge margins all over the USA
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MickinDetroit > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




Marriage equality wont be on the ballot though. I have this sinking feeling that 2016 is going to be much more midterm turn out from our side
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




They will vote anyway, and are clearly Republican. They turn out to vote in elections. Our side only votes in Presidential Election years in great numbers. I am not worried about this.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




There are elections where GOP base turnout hasn't been so good, like 2006. I find the most motivating factor for a base is if they're angry and who at. You're correct regarding 2016; with Obama having been in office for 8 years, the GOP base will be out in droves no matter what. It's the Dems who may have to worry a little more this time about turnout.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MickinDetroit > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




Sure... but I'm here in an allegedly "blue" state that voted overwhelmingly for the most restrictive SSM ban in the country in a POTUS year with a D Governor and a D legislature (at the time) relying on gay issues to turn out our base is not a particularly good precedent.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > MickinDetroit  • 5 hours ago 




Michigan, home of my beloved UM. The vote in Michigan on the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages was 2004, when it passed by 59%. That was ages ago. I do not know of a recent poll, but getting 41% for marriage equality in 2004 would translate to a majority today! I found a 2013 poll that says 56% support marriage equality in Michigan, and even these numbers are old.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
John Masters > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I'm not sure I agree. If they rule in June, that's a pretty decent amount of time before Nov. 2016, and everyone will be getting married, and a few cake bakers and photographers will have to learn about public accommodation laws, but most folks will be on to something else. The Benghazi report from Congress won't come out until October 2016, so this will be a distant memory by then. I mean sure, a few Republicans will be promising a Constitutional Amendment to show those stupid justices a thing or two...but that's only going to carry them a little ways. The right may turn out, but it'll be to defeat Hillary, not to try to reverse the marriage ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




I think the only people pissed about marriage equality will be driven to vote in 2016 no matter what. Hilary wasn't ever going to win Alabama, and the right-wing Iowans and Virginians who show up to the polls would have done so anyway. It will be a tangential issue that won't really steer the election in any meaningful way.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




Agreed. You made my point more succinctly. The hard right will always vote. This won't make a difference as to whether or not they show up at the polls. The only thing that would keep them home is if no Democrat were on the ballot.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > John Masters  • 5 hours ago 




In 2016, yeah. But in 2006, I think a lot of them stayed home because Bush was still in power and there just wasn't the motivation. That year saw Dems sweep into Congress and state houses and governorships. And a couple of anti-gay marriage initiatives in conservative states only squeaked by (South Dakota and Virginia) or failed (Arizona). It says a lot about how most Americans sit on their ass when things *seem* good in their minds.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 





−
⚑ 


Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Bruno  • 5 hours ago 




The 2016 will depend on Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and North Carolina. These are the key swing states, and except for North Carolina they voted for Obama last time. The Republicans need to pick up a majority of these states to win, and hold on to Arizona and Georgia which may be competitive for Democrats.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
fuow > MickinDetroit  • 6 hours ago 




I hope you're right.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell > fuow  • 5 hours ago 




Good! We were thinking that you might be engaging in Schadenfreude by scaring us! :) BTW, Germany really needs to get their act together and stop being the only major country left in Western Europe (along with Italy) that is dragging their heels on this!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Eddi Haskell  • 5 hours ago 




What? You don't consider Andorra a major country?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Rene Salinas  • 7 hours ago 




Well this makes me feel a bit better.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/buzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html#disqus_thread












     

  <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;ord=1430267972;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD_rEyowK54BMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAdM8AAgQAAQIAAIYAUBb_pQAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD_rEyowK54BMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAdM8AAgQAAQIAAIYAUBb_pQAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430267972?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430267972?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys



Chris Geidner writes at Buzzfeed:
At Tuesday’s marriage arguments over same-sex couples’ marriage rights, the majority of the court appeared to be comfortable with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s understanding of human dignity as including gay people’s equal treatment under the law. While Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote in the case, did not make any unambiguous statement about the end result of the case, he harshly questioned the state of Michigan’s argument that it should be allowed to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.
 At one point, Kennedy commented to Michigan’s lawyer that its law banning same-sex couples from marrying “assumes” that those couples can’t have the same “more noble purpose” as opposite sex couples have for entering marriage. Joined often by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the lawyer defending marriage bans, John Bursch, faced repeated questions about what other limits states could constitutionally place on marriages and whether the states’ claimed interest amounted to anything more than, as Sotomayor asked, a “ceiling…that doesn’t have logic.”
Geidner notes that Chief Justice John Roberts did not appear to favor either side.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       147 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;ord=1430267972;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOs6BSSxXcbMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAALK8AAgQAAQIAAIYAYxf0HwAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOs6BSSxXcbMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAALK8AAgQAAQIAAIYAYxf0HwAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267972?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267972?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/buzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html#disqus_thread









     

  <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;ord=1430267972;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD_rEyowK54BMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAdM8AAgQAAQIAAIYAUBb_pQAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD_rEyowK54BMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAdM8AAgQAAQIAAIYAUBb_pQAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430267972?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430267972?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys



Chris Geidner writes at Buzzfeed:
At Tuesday’s marriage arguments over same-sex couples’ marriage rights, the majority of the court appeared to be comfortable with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s understanding of human dignity as including gay people’s equal treatment under the law. While Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote in the case, did not make any unambiguous statement about the end result of the case, he harshly questioned the state of Michigan’s argument that it should be allowed to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.
 At one point, Kennedy commented to Michigan’s lawyer that its law banning same-sex couples from marrying “assumes” that those couples can’t have the same “more noble purpose” as opposite sex couples have for entering marriage. Joined often by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the lawyer defending marriage bans, John Bursch, faced repeated questions about what other limits states could constitutionally place on marriages and whether the states’ claimed interest amounted to anything more than, as Sotomayor asked, a “ceiling…that doesn’t have logic.”
Geidner notes that Chief Justice John Roberts did not appear to favor either side.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
      147 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;ord=1430267972;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOs6BSSxXcbMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAALK8AAgQAAQIAAIYAYxf0HwAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFTjpZvEILA_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOs6BSSxXcbMoWZYCoFsiREKEBVAAAAAGXKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACoFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEAKAAWALQCAAALK8AAgQAAQIAAIYAYxf0HwAAAAA./cnd=%21QgYIOQi5pbwBEKipgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fbuzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267972?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=160x600;ord=1430267972?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/buzzfeed-predicts-win-for-good-guys.html#disqus_thread










  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



This Could Be The Ground Zero Location for WWIII  Money Morning 




Is Ejaculation Possible After A Prostatectomy?  Cancer Treatment Centers of America 




U.S. Growth Paused, Not Stopped: Prospects for the New Swing Producer in the Global Oil Market  Cera 




The Stunning Evolution of Millennials: They've Become the Ben Franklin Generation  Huffington Post 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   53 comments 


 Here Is Todays SCOTUS Protester   113 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  81 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   211 comments 






 159 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




WSJ: Justice Kennedy suggested that states arguing against same-sex marriage underestimated the important role that marriage plays in bestowing dignity on loving couples who wish to wed. And he also questioned the states’ argument that children would be better off if traditional definitions of marriage remain in place.
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Are you in the court?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > MarkOH  • 9 hours ago 




scotusblog, and also wall street journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich > MarkOH  • 9 hours ago 




no...following live blogging
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Well, thank you for the updates!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Lawerence Collins > Sam_Handwich  • 8 hours ago 




Infinity times thank you!
Break time day dreaming...
 
Thumbnail
 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Serious question... The definition of marriage we currently have has been with us for maybe 600 years. That's hardly millennia. How do statements like this go unchallenged in our nation's top deliberative body?
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John P. > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Women were treated as property for a millennia. Does that make a difference?
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > John P.  • 9 hours ago 




And don't forget slavery.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MichelMT > John P.  • 9 hours ago 




Also a good point. But based on Scalia's line of questioning it's clear that the opposition is looking to base their case on a historical precedent. See the earlier questions about Greek culture allowing gay relationships but not elevating them to marriage. Scalia asked (paraphrasing a lot) if the pro marriage side was calling all past civilization bigoted.
Therefore it seems especially important to correct inaccuracies in the historical understanding of marriage that is being incorrectly described.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Scalia is a bronze age type of guy so not unexpected from him.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MichelMT > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




All the more reason to openly challenge his "wisdom"
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




It is also irrelevant if past societies were bigoted-history tells us they were and we do not allow most of the injustices perpetuated back then.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MichelMT > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




Irrelevant as it is, it's clearly been brought up and therefore it should be addressed- both as irrelevant and as innacurate.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




The lawyers arguing for us should knock all of these wingnut arguments down and I hope they are prepared for any of these specious arguments.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Chucktech > oikos  • 8 hours ago 




Since we chatty homosexuals can just sit here and use very little of our brain power to refute bullshit like this, I'm guessing that our brainy advocates arguing our case should be able to respond with similar logic.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Chucktech  • 8 hours ago 




One would hope so for our sake.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MichelMT > Chucktech  • 8 hours ago 




Yes, And so I'll restate the question: Why don't we see our advocates doing so? Or will that happen later in the process?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
What? > MichelMT  • 8 hours ago 




But these societies didn't promise equality for their citizens, with one or two notable exceptions. It is bigoted to say everyone is equal except the class of people I don't like. In other words, past civilizations didn't see bigotry as a problem, if the concept even existed for them.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh > MichelMT  • 8 hours ago 




What the ancient Greeks did or didn't do is flatly irrelevant.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Silver_Witch > John P.  • 9 hours ago 




Should have read the posts before posting the exact same above. Thank you!!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John P. > Silver_Witch  • 7 hours ago 




Look at the time. I posted earlier.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver_Witch > John P.  • 2 hours ago 




I know. I was apologizing for posting the same thing when did such a great job. Sorry no offense meant.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Stev84 > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Far less. Until the 19th century it was standard in common law countries for women to lose their entire legal identity when marrying. They didn't just lose their property to their husbands, but couldn't even be represented on their own in courts. That's where absurdly antiquated phrases like "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" come from.
In some countries, women couldn't work or open a bank account without their husband's permission until the mid 20th century.
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > Stev84  • 9 hours ago 




I wish this argument was made more often. The "definition" of marriage has been in flux for quite a while. If tradition is the bedrock upon which to make the argument against marriage equality, it's one full of cracks.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Cricket > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




The fact you can't sell your daughter for 3 goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stev84 > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




And like with same-sex marriage, the abolition of the coverture doctrine was met with similar cries of doom and gloom by many. It was seen as essential to marriage that women are completely subordinate to their husbands.
This is what the Supreme Court had to say about a woman wanting to work as a lawyer:
"The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life... The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator."
That was in the 1870s.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JustDucky > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Less than that. At the federal level, marriage in the United States was "one man & as many women as he wants to marry" until 1862, when the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law.
Edit: And of course there were skin color restrictions until Loving v. Virginia. So really, our current legal definition of marriage is less than 50 years old. Or, if you include what happens within a marriage as part of what defines a marriage, then our current legal definition is younger than I am since spousal rape wasn't illegal in all 50 states until 1993.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




No, nothing like as long. Look at the symbolism: the bride's father traditionally made a deal with the prospective groom's father. To seal the deal the prospective bride accepts an engagement ring. If the marriage is called off the ring is returned to show that the deal is off. If a wedding ends in divorce the wedding ring is not returned because the wedding ceremony merely demonstrates publicly the deal already made between the families. The bride is brought to the altar covered in a veil. She is presented to the groom by her father who now hands off his rights in her as his property to her new master. The bride vows to "love, honor, and obey" her husband. When the vows are exchanged and the rings put on the bride then lifts her veil and her husband kisses her to claim her as his sexual property. That night it was traditional, in England at least, for the friends of both parties to the marriage to wait outside the bedroom door to make sure no-one - aka, the bride - escaped. In the morning the sheets would be examined. That is the older and more traditional form. Changing the obligations of the bride were a huge shift since that recognized the woman as a person and not as property. So he is entirely wrong about this.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
gaylib > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Or by the attorney representing us????
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MichelMT > gaylib  • 9 hours ago 




I can understand not wanting to directly challenge a Justice, but this is a pretty flagrant ignorance of facts that are very relevant to the issue at hand.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




No, it would have been OK, but such a challenge has to be delivered in the language of the law and precedent.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980 > gaylib  • 9 hours ago 




Indeed, hate to say it but she could have done a MUCH better job then she did.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Chris Baker > MichelMT  • 24 minutes ago 




I think the whole term 'marriage' is throwing everyone off in this debate, and that is what is frustrating me. I wish the lawyers would just say "straight couples are allowed to enter a legal contract that protects them and gives them certain rights and responsibilities under the law. Gay couple cannot enter this same legal contract. Is that fair, is the right under the US Constitution. The fact that we call this contract 'marriage' shoud be moot. It is the term we inherited."
We also have had, for millennia, a misunderstanding of gays and lesbians. It has only been in the past 50 years that gays and lesbians have been not viewed as mentally defective. Of course, 200 years ago when gay people could have been put to death, they were not allowed to marry. 200 years ago we didn't let women become doctors or lawyers because society believed that women were not smart enough to become doctors or lawyers. Yet now we know better and women are doctor and lawyers and are CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies. The similar understanding of gays and lesbians has changed their position in society. Can't we as a nation and society evolve and grow?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
IamM > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Less than a century actually.
The right to interracial and interfaith marriage.
No fault divorce.
Women's right to own and control property independently of their husbands.
The right to use birth control.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin > MichelMT  • 5 hours ago 




Michel
In none of the legal briefs to date on SSM have any of the lawyers outlined a history of the ever changing definitions of marriage. None have brought up the history and facts of ancient marriages being more about property rights and treaties than about love and commitment.
I honestly don't understand why at least some of that part of history was not entered into the record. But because it hasn't entering it during these oral arguments won't happen which is a shame
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
BrianInNH  • 9 hours ago 




He is asking tough questions of both sides just like he did in the Windsor case. I wouldn't read much into this.
 
23 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SunsetGay > BrianInNH  • 9 hours ago 




Exactly! Kennedy is doing his part to show ambivalence and not be accused of bias. People need to relax and let the court handle this. It's out of our hands for now.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > SunsetGay  • 9 hours ago 




This is something SCOTUS does a lot and for those of us who don't follow rulings on a regular basis, it can be a source of great anxiety. But I agree, this has the ring of "devil's advocate" to it, or simply, we're covering all the intellectual ground before moving on.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Phil > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




Also, keep in mind that 38 states are now marrying people of the same sex and the court has not intervened in those cases. It was forced to intervene in this one. A reversal at this point would mean chaos from a legal standpoint.
Big picture people.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frank Butterfield > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




Very well put
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
LovesIrony > SunsetGay  • 9 hours ago 




when was it in "our hands"?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > LovesIrony  • 8 hours ago 




This morning. My right hand, anyway.
Wait. What?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > People4Humanity  • 8 hours ago 




I demand proof, pictures or it didn't happen.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mike > LovesIrony  • 8 hours ago 




Oh, let's see. How about all of the time we've been working to get to this point. If we had not worked then, we wouldn't be were we are now. This didn't just fall out of the sky.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




I can think of a lot of things that have been changed in spite of their acceptance across millenia. Slavery is one of them.
 
18 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




Also: The divine right of Kings. The treatment of bad humors in the body. Using mercury to make hats. Extending the franchise to property owners or white men or just men. Building battleships primarily out of wood. Riding horses as a primary means of transportation. Not bathing.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Steverino > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




Any jurist "worth his salt" should recognize instinctively that legal arguments based on "appeal to tradition" are arguments based on a logical fallacy.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Steverino  • 8 hours ago 




I agree. And I believe at least 7 of the Justices do as well.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




Oh, and how could I forget -- using lead in plumbing.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
delk > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




paint
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Snarkaholic > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




And to make dinner plates.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > Snarkaholic  • 9 hours ago 




Or if you want to relive the good old days, just order your plates from China.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Snarkaholic  • 9 hours ago 




Oh right. Yikes!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
sherman > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




and lead as an additive in gasoline.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > sherman  • 9 hours ago 




I do kind of wish I could drive up to my local Standard Oil station and ask the hot gas jockey to "Fill it up with Ethyl." Just for the camp value.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Frank Butterfield  • 8 hours ago 




Whatever happened to the Ethyl Corporation after the use of their product was outlawed?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




Not even Fred Mertz wanted her after that...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frank Butterfield > RoFaWh  • 8 hours ago 




They're still around: http://www.ethyl.com
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Robincho > Frank Butterfield  • 5 hours ago 




Is he the same one who was pumping Ethyl behind the store just last week?...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




Exactly!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 















Avatar
Brian in Valdosta > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




I don't know what is in Justice Kennedy's mind, but maybe that is what he's getting at. Perhaps he's asking this question almost in a rhetorical way.
I don't know. But maybe?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




It might be helpful to remember that the founding of this country was in contradiction to a definition that had been with us for millenia -- the divine right of Kings. Jefferson wrote:
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The m-effing bolding is mine. And that was a radical departure. Much more, in context, than marriage equality but right up there with protected equal rights for all. IMHO.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




^up^vote^ for m-effing bolding!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
geoffalnutt  • 9 hours ago 




Slavery, women as chattel, etc...millenia. You had a point?
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Silver_Witch  • 9 hours ago 




Uh oh my ass. Slavery was around for a millenia; woman were chattel for a millenia. BOTH were wrong, both were ended. GROW up man and stop babbling about a God in the sky that gives a rats ass what we little insignificant creatures do on this planet.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > Silver_Witch  • 5 hours ago 




You mean both were around for A MILLENNIUM.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver_Witch > Robincho  • 2 hours ago 




Thank for fixing my spelling or grammar you are now the official grammar police your family will be proud.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Bruno  • 9 hours ago 




This is phrased in a very interesting way. "...it's very difficult for this court to say we know better" indicates that maybe Kennedy does not think these laws can fall under what we normally call a "rational basis review." I have a hard time believing that Kennedy is saying that the court (led by himself) will refuse to strike down the bans, when at least 5 justices previously rubber-stamped dozens of lower court rulings that allowed this definition to change. His vote in Windsor and his true understanding of the effect that marriage bans have on gay couples and their children also leads me to this conclusion. Still, I wish he'd have been clearer about his judgment in these hearings so we don't have to bite our nails for 2 months.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme > Bruno  • 8 hours ago 




Thank you for this, Bruno. This is a plausible interpretation. Noah Feldman's interpretation in Bloomberg is a bit more reserved, but comes to the same optimistic conclusion: he argues that difficult decisions take some time and the time has come.
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 8 hours ago 




Thanks. It all sets up Kennedy as showing he will rule in our favor but will not have taken it lightly. I hope that means that his ruling will have some broader implications for lgbt people than just marriage rights.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bryan  • 8 hours ago 




From the blog : 'Chief Justice Roberts shifted gears and lobbed a skeptical hypothetical question at the states. Sue loves Joe and Tom also loves Joe, but Sue can marry Joe, while Tom can’t, he said. “Why isn’t that a straightforward case of sexual discrimination?” he asked.'
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > bryan  • 8 hours ago 




An interesting argument.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > bryan  • 7 hours ago 




Particularly interesting, because if it IS a straightforward case of sexual discrimination, then it is, by SCOTUS precedent, subject to intermediate scrutiny.
While I'd prefer recognition of heightened scrutiny in our own right for sexual orientation - long overdue and clearly warranted - this would be a significant step forward.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Here's what Kennedy said to the states.
He also said that he thought that the fact that same-sex couples raise adopted children cut strongly against the state's arguments.
 He said that his sense was that a principal purpose of marriage was to afford dignity to the couples, which is denied to same-sex couples.
 You can step back from the ledge now.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 9 hours ago 




12:05 pm
Mr. Verrilli engaged with several justices on the importance and impact of the court’s 2003 gay-rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state law that made is a crime for two people of the same sex to engage in intimate sexual conduct.
Chief Justice Roberts said the Lawrence decision stood for the
proposition that states cannot intrude into intimate personal
relationships. The current case, he said, raised different issues. Mr. Verrilli responded that Lawrence has allowed society to see that justifications for discrimination against gays and lesbians don’t hold up.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jonty Coppersmith > oikos  • 6 hours ago 




IANAL, but that sounds like a pretty good reply from Verrilli.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
NeverEclipsed81  • 9 hours ago 




I live 10 miles away from the OH/PA border. Right now I have less rights than I would if I lived 10 miles away. I'm sick of this.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stev84  • 9 hours ago 




Marriage in its current (and western) form is less than 200 years old
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > Stev84  • 8 hours ago 




Much less than one hundred in the U.S.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robincho > Stev84  • 5 hours ago 




Fewer, not less. But it still totally sucks...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lymis  • 8 hours ago 




Ignoring for argument the many ways in which marriage has absolutely changed over the last millennia, the only reason that would matter is if someone was trying to change marriage for straight people.
Nothing about how marriage is contracted or conducted between straight people changes because of same-sex marriage equality. No eligibility is impacted, no rights or obligations are constrained.
As far as straight people are concerned as citizens and as individuals, nothing changes, so it's moot to discuss anything relating to the definition of marriage as it involves straight people - and the point is a pure red herring.
There is no shortage of marriage licenses, so that adding gay people creates additional competition for scarce openings.
NOTHING about the definition of marriage as it applies to straight people is before the Court. So whether or not it is millennia old or yesterday's news is immaterial.
The question is whether it can be legitimately denied to some citizens purely because of the bare disapproval of others.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > lymis  • 8 hours ago 




I hope the plaintiff's attorney makes these points!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
mr wonderful  • 9 hours ago 




There is a long history of same sex relationships in many cultures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Additionally, "two-spirit" people were commonly revered in Native American cultures
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > mr wonderful  • 9 hours ago 




I could stand being revered for a change...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > BobSF_94117  • 9 hours ago 




Well, Bob, you already know how I feel on that topic... ;-)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cuberly > BobSF_94117  • 7 hours ago 




Ooooohhh Mighty Bob!
(Yes that is a very obscure pun in reference to Beneath the Planet of the Apes.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Randy Ellicott  • 9 hours ago 




No the definition of marriage that is the longest is between a man and his property, which sometimes involved women but more importantly livestock, lands, and slaves...
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bryan  • 9 hours ago 




Justice Kennedy suggested that states arguing against same-sex marriage underestimated the important role that marriage plays in bestowing dignity on loving couples who wish to wed. And he also questioned the states’ argument that children would be better off if traditional definitions of marriage remain in place.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > bryan  • 8 hours ago 




Does this bigotry benefit children of heterosexual couples?
No.
Does it harm children of gay couples?
Yes, obviously.
Gay marriage for everyone. Case closed. Everybody go home.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > IamM  • 8 hours ago 




No doubt !
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
HoneyBoySmith  • 9 hours ago 




It's gonna be a LOOOOONG two months waiting for the decision.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
The Professor  • 9 hours ago 




Kennedy also made a case for marriage as an equal protection question in Windsor as well.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
The Professor  • 9 hours ago 




Go back and look at what he said in Windsor and DOMA. His big focus is the children of the marriages. I am not worried about him.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




he said it was "difficult" not impossible
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Sam_Handwich  • 8 hours ago 




Of course it's difficult! That's what he's paid for: doing difficult work.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > RoFaWh  • 8 hours ago 




Right, that. It's why they call it the supreme court: it only examines and rules on the hardest of questions. I do wish I believed that they were all the very best jurists to be had though.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > David L. Caster  • 5 hours ago 




It's sad when a Clarence Thomas can replace a Thurgood Marshall...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




Aint that the truth. Scalia and Thomas should never have been appointed to SCOTUS. Neither could find their way out of a paper bag with a lit blowtorch. Seriously.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




That would be his way of saying make your case NOW.
 Just like Breyer did later on.
I imagine their minds our made up but that doesn't mean our side shouldn't have expected hard questions like that.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Don't bore us, get to the point, we have lunch waiting.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
joe ho  • 9 hours ago 




so kennedy, however he will rule, basically gave the bigots the sound-bite they'll use for the next two months.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > joe ho  • 8 hours ago 




They need something to nibble on.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Tor  • 8 hours ago 




The image of a dog chewing on a rawhide bone comes to mind.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
geru  • 9 hours ago 




I'm pretty fucking sure we know lot's of things better than people did a century ago, let alone a millennium ago.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > geru  • 8 hours ago 




Plus we have this constitution that overrules any tradition, precedent, or vote.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > IamM  • 8 hours ago 




But does the constitution apply to the homos ?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




I think that's more like a ruh roh. Kennedy is known for asking hard questions of BOTH sides.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jomicur > Frank Butterfield  • 8 hours ago 




But that's not really a question, is it? It's a statement.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > jomicur  • 8 hours ago 




In SupremeCourtLand, they are pretty much the same thing. They ask questions but don't let the attorneys finish answering. They cross talk to each other. They crack little legal witticisms. And they make statements that are really questions.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > Frank Butterfield  • 5 hours ago 




Can I stare at your decisis a bit longer?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




You can stare at my decisis anytime. And my facie is prima!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Gustav2  • 9 hours ago 




That's a 'make your best case right now' statement.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh  • 8 hours ago 




Kennedy's statement is both wong and incomplete.
Marriage has been defined in many different ways over the millenia. Just look into the OT for many examples from Bronze Age Palestine.
And during those millenia, there was no US Constitution.
Further, his job is to weigh the arguments against one thing only: what the Constitution says. Not what previous millenia may have said.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




So back to polygamy and women as chattel? Come on.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Kennedy asked tough questions of our side during DOMA as well.
 We all know how that turned out.
 Kennedy is our side but I really hope no one thought we were going to waltz in there and not get asked the same questions he asked back in the Prop 8 case.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




And this is why it’s important for people not to read too
much into any single question. The best way to get an early indication is to look at the overall tone of the questions combined and the kinds of questions that both sides were asked. The overall impressions I have seen thus far from the first section were of Kennedy being supportive of the plaintiffs.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Octavio  • 8 hours ago 




Oh my heck. Yes. Obviously the sky has fallen. It's all over. Time to go eat a worm and die. And it happened so quickly, too.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




I wouldn’t worry about that, Kennedy will ask hard questions
of our side but the overall impression of the first segment was that he was siding with the plaintiffs.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jeff D  • 9 hours ago 




So has slavery.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike_Bernard  • 9 hours ago 




Based on what SCOTUS Blog says, I'm not worried. They explained justices will ask tough questions to both sides.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Mike_Bernard  • 8 hours ago 




Kennedy in particular has a history of asking, "Here is the argument, prove to me it's not as stupid as it sounds" kinds of questions that look really scary in the moment.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Toasterlad  • 9 hours ago 




Calm down, everyone...as others have said, it's common (and reasonable) for the Justices to ask blunt questions of both sides. I think they do it to get material for their rulings. But I think his record so far is a far better indicator of how he'll vote than one question.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LonelyLiberal  • 9 hours ago 




I see. So the fact that marriage hasn't been allowed due to institutionalized discrimination means that said discrimination must be allowed to remain law. That's not exactly a brilliant argument there, Kennedy.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Tyson Fricker  • 9 hours ago 




Never trust a straight, wealthy, white man to vote for your rights. Their life of privilege precludes compassion.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Tyson Fricker  • 8 hours ago 




I think it's empathy that is missing in that case.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RNegron  • 7 hours ago 




"This definition of marriage has been with us for millenia...", same with poligamy, same thing with slavery, same thing with genoside and torture. Nobody argues for those other things just because they have been with us for millenia.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SeppiChicago  • 8 hours ago 




Strong questions are good. It means they aren't taking this lightly.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Lightman  • 8 hours ago 




Two words about old institutions: Dred Scott
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > David Lightman  • 7 hours ago 




Two more: Antonin Scalia.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bryan  • 8 hours ago 




Justice Kennedy said gay couples were the ones who were standing ready to adopt unwanted, out-of-wedlock children. So that line of argument cuts against the states, he said.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 9 hours ago 




Here is the audio for the first 90 minutes:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Disqusdmnj  • 9 hours ago 




There are times when I'm truly embarrassed by fellow homo sapiens.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
danolgb  • 9 hours ago 




I do hope that our lawyers were prepared for this. Our culture tends to act as if nothing was happening outside a small area of the world geography, when in fact, there are cultures that did celebrate same gendered unions millennia ago. They're just not in the general area covered in the bible.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ericpayne  • 9 hours ago 




When I saw that question pop up at SCOTUSblog... my thoughts exactly. Well, not exactly... I tend to think "Oh shit!" in uh-oh moments.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale  • 3 hours ago 




When Jefferson considered the issue of keeping the status quo in the law just because that was the way things have always been, he said this:
"...laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 7 hours ago 




And for more than a millennia - it was defined that the sun did in fact orbit the earth.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustDucky  • 7 hours ago 




"This definition has been with us for millennia, and I think it's very difficult for this court to say we know better."
Our Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law, has been with us for 226 years, and this court is required to uphold it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Igby  • 8 hours ago 




I'm not so sure that this is an "Uh Oh". In the end, these two questions must be decided by the court based on the U. S. Constitution. The Constitution is only 228 years old. I'm not losing heart just yet.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Btw, for those wondering about what would happen if there was a 6-3 ruling, here it is per SCOTUSBLOG.
If any Justice's vote is not essential to the majority (i.e., the case is decided at least 6-3), then the other Justices can write their own concurring opinion articulating a broader rule. If five Justices join such an opinion, then it becomes the majority opinion, and the narrower opinion will become the concurrence. But do I think that such a result would be likely in this case? Not really.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
lymis > Ninja0980  • 8 hours ago 




It's important to note that there can also be a plurality rather than a majority. It's extremely rare, but it has happened - where a majority of justices agree on WHAT should happen but no clear majority agrees on why.
The result in those cases is that whatever they agree on is binding, but what they don't agree on is not.
So if three justices rule that marriage must be allowed because it's a fundamental right, but make no ruling on heightened scrutiny, and three justices rule that marriage must be allowed because LGBT people deserve heightened scrutiny but that same-sex marriage is not the same as straight marriage, you'd end up with marriage being mandated but no precedent going forward.
I'd be stunned if that happened. I expect a majority ruling for marriage as a fundamental right, with a possible "concurring in part and dissenting in part" minority stating that heightened scrutiny applies across the board (though I won't be surprised if they kick that question down the road again.)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GuestStop  • an hour ago 




Kennedy, the definition of why you should be forced to pass an intelligence quiz before you can hold any authority.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
AtticCrazy  • 2 hours ago 




My feeling is we're going to lose this battle. I felt it as soon as the discussion about allowing the equality to evolve naturally in each state because it will make people feel better about the change than if the court "just gives it to us".
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. It will be 20-30 years more before the United States sees full marriage equality.
I feel sick to my stomach.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 7 hours ago 




Interestingly, this sound bite was early and was a rhetorical statement to our lawyer to start the conversation on tradition vs the constitution. Later interventions by Kennedy sound more positive.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Belthazar  • 7 hours ago 




Having done oral arguments (not before SCOTUS), sometimes you are not given the opportunity to respond directly to a question or statement and have to weave it into other answers. Nevertheless, I'm not finding this as ominous as others.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 8 hours ago 




I'm not going to listen to 90 minutes. Could someone be kind enough to provide the context of this statement? Who did he address this to? What was the question? What was said before and after? This might help.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 7 hours ago 




The transcript is available now:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Thank you. I found it. The "sound bite" sounds more devastating than the exchange (p 2). Kennedy was throwing a rhetorical ball about the passage of time (the reference to millenia was from the other side's arguments) in our lawyer's court and she responded.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Lawerence Collins  • 8 hours ago 




This and the King lawsuit have me beyond fucked up. The anxiety, depression. I wanna scream till the earth shakes.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
danolgb  • 8 hours ago 




Bloomberg is already on this..
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JoeyKY  • 9 hours ago 




we're screwed.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > JoeyKY  • 9 hours ago 




scroll down for relief.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KT  • 9 hours ago 




Apparently even Breyer was asking skeptical questions and Kagan has been quite quiet. God damn I kinda hate the Supreme Court right now.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > KT  • 9 hours ago 




If it helps... This isn't where the real decision is made.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KT > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




I know but it doesn't fill me with hope. I never thought the Supreme Court would gut the Civil Rights Act but they did. Now I fear they will take a wait and see approach and give us a faulty ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > KT  • 9 hours ago 




So, I guess that didn't help... ;-)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MickinDetroit  • 9 hours ago 




here comes the baby splitting....
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




MILLENNIUM is the Latin for "a thousand years."
MILLENNIA is the Latin for "thousands of years."
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 9 hours ago 




No, this definition -- the exclusion of same-sex couples -- has been with us since 372 CE ("AD" for the traditionalists).
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


Avatar






http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/uh-oh.html#disqus_thread








  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



This Could Be The Ground Zero Location for WWIII  Money Morning 




Is Ejaculation Possible After A Prostatectomy?  Cancer Treatment Centers of America 




U.S. Growth Paused, Not Stopped: Prospects for the New Swing Producer in the Global Oil Market  Cera 




The Stunning Evolution of Millennials: They've Become the Ben Franklin Generation  Huffington Post 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   53 comments 


 Here Is Todays SCOTUS Protester   113 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  81 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   211 comments 






 159 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




WSJ: Justice Kennedy suggested that states arguing against same-sex marriage underestimated the important role that marriage plays in bestowing dignity on loving couples who wish to wed. And he also questioned the states’ argument that children would be better off if traditional definitions of marriage remain in place.
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Are you in the court?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > MarkOH  • 9 hours ago 




scotusblog, and also wall street journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich > MarkOH  • 9 hours ago 




no...following live blogging
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Well, thank you for the updates!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Lawerence Collins > Sam_Handwich  • 8 hours ago 




Infinity times thank you!
Break time day dreaming...
 
Thumbnail
 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Serious question... The definition of marriage we currently have has been with us for maybe 600 years. That's hardly millennia. How do statements like this go unchallenged in our nation's top deliberative body?
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John P. > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Women were treated as property for a millennia. Does that make a difference?
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > John P.  • 9 hours ago 




And don't forget slavery.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MichelMT > John P.  • 9 hours ago 




Also a good point. But based on Scalia's line of questioning it's clear that the opposition is looking to base their case on a historical precedent. See the earlier questions about Greek culture allowing gay relationships but not elevating them to marriage. Scalia asked (paraphrasing a lot) if the pro marriage side was calling all past civilization bigoted.
Therefore it seems especially important to correct inaccuracies in the historical understanding of marriage that is being incorrectly described.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Scalia is a bronze age type of guy so not unexpected from him.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MichelMT > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




All the more reason to openly challenge his "wisdom"
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




It is also irrelevant if past societies were bigoted-history tells us they were and we do not allow most of the injustices perpetuated back then.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MichelMT > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




Irrelevant as it is, it's clearly been brought up and therefore it should be addressed- both as irrelevant and as innacurate.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




The lawyers arguing for us should knock all of these wingnut arguments down and I hope they are prepared for any of these specious arguments.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Chucktech > oikos  • 8 hours ago 




Since we chatty homosexuals can just sit here and use very little of our brain power to refute bullshit like this, I'm guessing that our brainy advocates arguing our case should be able to respond with similar logic.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Chucktech  • 8 hours ago 




One would hope so for our sake.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MichelMT > Chucktech  • 8 hours ago 




Yes, And so I'll restate the question: Why don't we see our advocates doing so? Or will that happen later in the process?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
What? > MichelMT  • 8 hours ago 




But these societies didn't promise equality for their citizens, with one or two notable exceptions. It is bigoted to say everyone is equal except the class of people I don't like. In other words, past civilizations didn't see bigotry as a problem, if the concept even existed for them.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh > MichelMT  • 8 hours ago 




What the ancient Greeks did or didn't do is flatly irrelevant.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Silver_Witch > John P.  • 9 hours ago 




Should have read the posts before posting the exact same above. Thank you!!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John P. > Silver_Witch  • 7 hours ago 




Look at the time. I posted earlier.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver_Witch > John P.  • 2 hours ago 




I know. I was apologizing for posting the same thing when did such a great job. Sorry no offense meant.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Stev84 > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Far less. Until the 19th century it was standard in common law countries for women to lose their entire legal identity when marrying. They didn't just lose their property to their husbands, but couldn't even be represented on their own in courts. That's where absurdly antiquated phrases like "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" come from.
In some countries, women couldn't work or open a bank account without their husband's permission until the mid 20th century.
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > Stev84  • 9 hours ago 




I wish this argument was made more often. The "definition" of marriage has been in flux for quite a while. If tradition is the bedrock upon which to make the argument against marriage equality, it's one full of cracks.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Cricket > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




The fact you can't sell your daughter for 3 goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stev84 > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




And like with same-sex marriage, the abolition of the coverture doctrine was met with similar cries of doom and gloom by many. It was seen as essential to marriage that women are completely subordinate to their husbands.
This is what the Supreme Court had to say about a woman wanting to work as a lawyer:
"The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life... The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator."
That was in the 1870s.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JustDucky > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Less than that. At the federal level, marriage in the United States was "one man & as many women as he wants to marry" until 1862, when the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law.
Edit: And of course there were skin color restrictions until Loving v. Virginia. So really, our current legal definition of marriage is less than 50 years old. Or, if you include what happens within a marriage as part of what defines a marriage, then our current legal definition is younger than I am since spousal rape wasn't illegal in all 50 states until 1993.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




No, nothing like as long. Look at the symbolism: the bride's father traditionally made a deal with the prospective groom's father. To seal the deal the prospective bride accepts an engagement ring. If the marriage is called off the ring is returned to show that the deal is off. If a wedding ends in divorce the wedding ring is not returned because the wedding ceremony merely demonstrates publicly the deal already made between the families. The bride is brought to the altar covered in a veil. She is presented to the groom by her father who now hands off his rights in her as his property to her new master. The bride vows to "love, honor, and obey" her husband. When the vows are exchanged and the rings put on the bride then lifts her veil and her husband kisses her to claim her as his sexual property. That night it was traditional, in England at least, for the friends of both parties to the marriage to wait outside the bedroom door to make sure no-one - aka, the bride - escaped. In the morning the sheets would be examined. That is the older and more traditional form. Changing the obligations of the bride were a huge shift since that recognized the woman as a person and not as property. So he is entirely wrong about this.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
gaylib > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Or by the attorney representing us????
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MichelMT > gaylib  • 9 hours ago 




I can understand not wanting to directly challenge a Justice, but this is a pretty flagrant ignorance of facts that are very relevant to the issue at hand.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




No, it would have been OK, but such a challenge has to be delivered in the language of the law and precedent.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980 > gaylib  • 9 hours ago 




Indeed, hate to say it but she could have done a MUCH better job then she did.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Chris Baker > MichelMT  • 24 minutes ago 




I think the whole term 'marriage' is throwing everyone off in this debate, and that is what is frustrating me. I wish the lawyers would just say "straight couples are allowed to enter a legal contract that protects them and gives them certain rights and responsibilities under the law. Gay couple cannot enter this same legal contract. Is that fair, is the right under the US Constitution. The fact that we call this contract 'marriage' shoud be moot. It is the term we inherited."
We also have had, for millennia, a misunderstanding of gays and lesbians. It has only been in the past 50 years that gays and lesbians have been not viewed as mentally defective. Of course, 200 years ago when gay people could have been put to death, they were not allowed to marry. 200 years ago we didn't let women become doctors or lawyers because society believed that women were not smart enough to become doctors or lawyers. Yet now we know better and women are doctor and lawyers and are CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies. The similar understanding of gays and lesbians has changed their position in society. Can't we as a nation and society evolve and grow?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
IamM > MichelMT  • 9 hours ago 




Less than a century actually.
The right to interracial and interfaith marriage.
No fault divorce.
Women's right to own and control property independently of their husbands.
The right to use birth control.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin > MichelMT  • 5 hours ago 




Michel
In none of the legal briefs to date on SSM have any of the lawyers outlined a history of the ever changing definitions of marriage. None have brought up the history and facts of ancient marriages being more about property rights and treaties than about love and commitment.
I honestly don't understand why at least some of that part of history was not entered into the record. But because it hasn't entering it during these oral arguments won't happen which is a shame
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
BrianInNH  • 9 hours ago 




He is asking tough questions of both sides just like he did in the Windsor case. I wouldn't read much into this.
 
23 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SunsetGay > BrianInNH  • 9 hours ago 




Exactly! Kennedy is doing his part to show ambivalence and not be accused of bias. People need to relax and let the court handle this. It's out of our hands for now.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > SunsetGay  • 9 hours ago 




This is something SCOTUS does a lot and for those of us who don't follow rulings on a regular basis, it can be a source of great anxiety. But I agree, this has the ring of "devil's advocate" to it, or simply, we're covering all the intellectual ground before moving on.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Phil > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




Also, keep in mind that 38 states are now marrying people of the same sex and the court has not intervened in those cases. It was forced to intervene in this one. A reversal at this point would mean chaos from a legal standpoint.
Big picture people.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frank Butterfield > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




Very well put
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
LovesIrony > SunsetGay  • 9 hours ago 




when was it in "our hands"?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > LovesIrony  • 8 hours ago 




This morning. My right hand, anyway.
Wait. What?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > People4Humanity  • 8 hours ago 




I demand proof, pictures or it didn't happen.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mike > LovesIrony  • 8 hours ago 




Oh, let's see. How about all of the time we've been working to get to this point. If we had not worked then, we wouldn't be were we are now. This didn't just fall out of the sky.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




I can think of a lot of things that have been changed in spite of their acceptance across millenia. Slavery is one of them.
 
18 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




Also: The divine right of Kings. The treatment of bad humors in the body. Using mercury to make hats. Extending the franchise to property owners or white men or just men. Building battleships primarily out of wood. Riding horses as a primary means of transportation. Not bathing.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Steverino > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




Any jurist "worth his salt" should recognize instinctively that legal arguments based on "appeal to tradition" are arguments based on a logical fallacy.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Steverino  • 8 hours ago 




I agree. And I believe at least 7 of the Justices do as well.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




Oh, and how could I forget -- using lead in plumbing.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
delk > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




paint
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Snarkaholic > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




And to make dinner plates.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mbmarquis69 > Snarkaholic  • 9 hours ago 




Or if you want to relive the good old days, just order your plates from China.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Snarkaholic  • 9 hours ago 




Oh right. Yikes!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
sherman > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




and lead as an additive in gasoline.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > sherman  • 9 hours ago 




I do kind of wish I could drive up to my local Standard Oil station and ask the hot gas jockey to "Fill it up with Ethyl." Just for the camp value.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Frank Butterfield  • 8 hours ago 




Whatever happened to the Ethyl Corporation after the use of their product was outlawed?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > RoFaWh  • 5 hours ago 




Not even Fred Mertz wanted her after that...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frank Butterfield > RoFaWh  • 8 hours ago 




They're still around: http://www.ethyl.com
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Robincho > Frank Butterfield  • 5 hours ago 




Is he the same one who was pumping Ethyl behind the store just last week?...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




Exactly!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 















Avatar
Brian in Valdosta > mbmarquis69  • 9 hours ago 




I don't know what is in Justice Kennedy's mind, but maybe that is what he's getting at. Perhaps he's asking this question almost in a rhetorical way.
I don't know. But maybe?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




It might be helpful to remember that the founding of this country was in contradiction to a definition that had been with us for millenia -- the divine right of Kings. Jefferson wrote:
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The m-effing bolding is mine. And that was a radical departure. Much more, in context, than marriage equality but right up there with protected equal rights for all. IMHO.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




^up^vote^ for m-effing bolding!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
geoffalnutt  • 9 hours ago 




Slavery, women as chattel, etc...millenia. You had a point?
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Silver_Witch  • 9 hours ago 




Uh oh my ass. Slavery was around for a millenia; woman were chattel for a millenia. BOTH were wrong, both were ended. GROW up man and stop babbling about a God in the sky that gives a rats ass what we little insignificant creatures do on this planet.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > Silver_Witch  • 5 hours ago 




You mean both were around for A MILLENNIUM.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver_Witch > Robincho  • 2 hours ago 




Thank for fixing my spelling or grammar you are now the official grammar police your family will be proud.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Bruno  • 9 hours ago 




This is phrased in a very interesting way. "...it's very difficult for this court to say we know better" indicates that maybe Kennedy does not think these laws can fall under what we normally call a "rational basis review." I have a hard time believing that Kennedy is saying that the court (led by himself) will refuse to strike down the bans, when at least 5 justices previously rubber-stamped dozens of lower court rulings that allowed this definition to change. His vote in Windsor and his true understanding of the effect that marriage bans have on gay couples and their children also leads me to this conclusion. Still, I wish he'd have been clearer about his judgment in these hearings so we don't have to bite our nails for 2 months.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme > Bruno  • 8 hours ago 




Thank you for this, Bruno. This is a plausible interpretation. Noah Feldman's interpretation in Bloomberg is a bit more reserved, but comes to the same optimistic conclusion: he argues that difficult decisions take some time and the time has come.
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 8 hours ago 




Thanks. It all sets up Kennedy as showing he will rule in our favor but will not have taken it lightly. I hope that means that his ruling will have some broader implications for lgbt people than just marriage rights.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bryan  • 8 hours ago 




From the blog : 'Chief Justice Roberts shifted gears and lobbed a skeptical hypothetical question at the states. Sue loves Joe and Tom also loves Joe, but Sue can marry Joe, while Tom can’t, he said. “Why isn’t that a straightforward case of sexual discrimination?” he asked.'
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MarkOH > bryan  • 8 hours ago 




An interesting argument.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > bryan  • 7 hours ago 




Particularly interesting, because if it IS a straightforward case of sexual discrimination, then it is, by SCOTUS precedent, subject to intermediate scrutiny.
While I'd prefer recognition of heightened scrutiny in our own right for sexual orientation - long overdue and clearly warranted - this would be a significant step forward.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Here's what Kennedy said to the states.
He also said that he thought that the fact that same-sex couples raise adopted children cut strongly against the state's arguments.
 He said that his sense was that a principal purpose of marriage was to afford dignity to the couples, which is denied to same-sex couples.
 You can step back from the ledge now.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 9 hours ago 




12:05 pm
Mr. Verrilli engaged with several justices on the importance and impact of the court’s 2003 gay-rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state law that made is a crime for two people of the same sex to engage in intimate sexual conduct.
Chief Justice Roberts said the Lawrence decision stood for the
proposition that states cannot intrude into intimate personal
relationships. The current case, he said, raised different issues. Mr. Verrilli responded that Lawrence has allowed society to see that justifications for discrimination against gays and lesbians don’t hold up.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jonty Coppersmith > oikos  • 6 hours ago 




IANAL, but that sounds like a pretty good reply from Verrilli.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
NeverEclipsed81  • 9 hours ago 




I live 10 miles away from the OH/PA border. Right now I have less rights than I would if I lived 10 miles away. I'm sick of this.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stev84  • 9 hours ago 




Marriage in its current (and western) form is less than 200 years old
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > Stev84  • 8 hours ago 




Much less than one hundred in the U.S.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robincho > Stev84  • 5 hours ago 




Fewer, not less. But it still totally sucks...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lymis  • 8 hours ago 




Ignoring for argument the many ways in which marriage has absolutely changed over the last millennia, the only reason that would matter is if someone was trying to change marriage for straight people.
Nothing about how marriage is contracted or conducted between straight people changes because of same-sex marriage equality. No eligibility is impacted, no rights or obligations are constrained.
As far as straight people are concerned as citizens and as individuals, nothing changes, so it's moot to discuss anything relating to the definition of marriage as it involves straight people - and the point is a pure red herring.
There is no shortage of marriage licenses, so that adding gay people creates additional competition for scarce openings.
NOTHING about the definition of marriage as it applies to straight people is before the Court. So whether or not it is millennia old or yesterday's news is immaterial.
The question is whether it can be legitimately denied to some citizens purely because of the bare disapproval of others.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > lymis  • 8 hours ago 




I hope the plaintiff's attorney makes these points!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
mr wonderful  • 9 hours ago 




There is a long history of same sex relationships in many cultures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Additionally, "two-spirit" people were commonly revered in Native American cultures
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > mr wonderful  • 9 hours ago 




I could stand being revered for a change...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > BobSF_94117  • 9 hours ago 




Well, Bob, you already know how I feel on that topic... ;-)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cuberly > BobSF_94117  • 7 hours ago 




Ooooohhh Mighty Bob!
(Yes that is a very obscure pun in reference to Beneath the Planet of the Apes.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Randy Ellicott  • 9 hours ago 




No the definition of marriage that is the longest is between a man and his property, which sometimes involved women but more importantly livestock, lands, and slaves...
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bryan  • 9 hours ago 




Justice Kennedy suggested that states arguing against same-sex marriage underestimated the important role that marriage plays in bestowing dignity on loving couples who wish to wed. And he also questioned the states’ argument that children would be better off if traditional definitions of marriage remain in place.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > bryan  • 8 hours ago 




Does this bigotry benefit children of heterosexual couples?
No.
Does it harm children of gay couples?
Yes, obviously.
Gay marriage for everyone. Case closed. Everybody go home.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > IamM  • 8 hours ago 




No doubt !
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
HoneyBoySmith  • 9 hours ago 




It's gonna be a LOOOOONG two months waiting for the decision.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
The Professor  • 9 hours ago 




Kennedy also made a case for marriage as an equal protection question in Windsor as well.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
The Professor  • 9 hours ago 




Go back and look at what he said in Windsor and DOMA. His big focus is the children of the marriages. I am not worried about him.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




he said it was "difficult" not impossible
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Sam_Handwich  • 8 hours ago 




Of course it's difficult! That's what he's paid for: doing difficult work.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > RoFaWh  • 8 hours ago 




Right, that. It's why they call it the supreme court: it only examines and rules on the hardest of questions. I do wish I believed that they were all the very best jurists to be had though.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > David L. Caster  • 5 hours ago 




It's sad when a Clarence Thomas can replace a Thurgood Marshall...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




Aint that the truth. Scalia and Thomas should never have been appointed to SCOTUS. Neither could find their way out of a paper bag with a lit blowtorch. Seriously.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




That would be his way of saying make your case NOW.
 Just like Breyer did later on.
I imagine their minds our made up but that doesn't mean our side shouldn't have expected hard questions like that.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Don't bore us, get to the point, we have lunch waiting.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
joe ho  • 9 hours ago 




so kennedy, however he will rule, basically gave the bigots the sound-bite they'll use for the next two months.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > joe ho  • 8 hours ago 




They need something to nibble on.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Tor  • 8 hours ago 




The image of a dog chewing on a rawhide bone comes to mind.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
geru  • 9 hours ago 




I'm pretty fucking sure we know lot's of things better than people did a century ago, let alone a millennium ago.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > geru  • 8 hours ago 




Plus we have this constitution that overrules any tradition, precedent, or vote.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > IamM  • 8 hours ago 




But does the constitution apply to the homos ?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




I think that's more like a ruh roh. Kennedy is known for asking hard questions of BOTH sides.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jomicur > Frank Butterfield  • 8 hours ago 




But that's not really a question, is it? It's a statement.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > jomicur  • 8 hours ago 




In SupremeCourtLand, they are pretty much the same thing. They ask questions but don't let the attorneys finish answering. They cross talk to each other. They crack little legal witticisms. And they make statements that are really questions.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > Frank Butterfield  • 5 hours ago 




Can I stare at your decisis a bit longer?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




You can stare at my decisis anytime. And my facie is prima!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Gustav2  • 9 hours ago 




That's a 'make your best case right now' statement.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh  • 8 hours ago 




Kennedy's statement is both wong and incomplete.
Marriage has been defined in many different ways over the millenia. Just look into the OT for many examples from Bronze Age Palestine.
And during those millenia, there was no US Constitution.
Further, his job is to weigh the arguments against one thing only: what the Constitution says. Not what previous millenia may have said.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




So back to polygamy and women as chattel? Come on.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Kennedy asked tough questions of our side during DOMA as well.
 We all know how that turned out.
 Kennedy is our side but I really hope no one thought we were going to waltz in there and not get asked the same questions he asked back in the Prop 8 case.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




And this is why it’s important for people not to read too
much into any single question. The best way to get an early indication is to look at the overall tone of the questions combined and the kinds of questions that both sides were asked. The overall impressions I have seen thus far from the first section were of Kennedy being supportive of the plaintiffs.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Octavio  • 8 hours ago 




Oh my heck. Yes. Obviously the sky has fallen. It's all over. Time to go eat a worm and die. And it happened so quickly, too.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




I wouldn’t worry about that, Kennedy will ask hard questions
of our side but the overall impression of the first segment was that he was siding with the plaintiffs.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jeff D  • 9 hours ago 




So has slavery.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike_Bernard  • 9 hours ago 




Based on what SCOTUS Blog says, I'm not worried. They explained justices will ask tough questions to both sides.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Mike_Bernard  • 8 hours ago 




Kennedy in particular has a history of asking, "Here is the argument, prove to me it's not as stupid as it sounds" kinds of questions that look really scary in the moment.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Toasterlad  • 9 hours ago 




Calm down, everyone...as others have said, it's common (and reasonable) for the Justices to ask blunt questions of both sides. I think they do it to get material for their rulings. But I think his record so far is a far better indicator of how he'll vote than one question.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LonelyLiberal  • 9 hours ago 




I see. So the fact that marriage hasn't been allowed due to institutionalized discrimination means that said discrimination must be allowed to remain law. That's not exactly a brilliant argument there, Kennedy.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Tyson Fricker  • 9 hours ago 




Never trust a straight, wealthy, white man to vote for your rights. Their life of privilege precludes compassion.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Tyson Fricker  • 8 hours ago 




I think it's empathy that is missing in that case.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RNegron  • 7 hours ago 




"This definition of marriage has been with us for millenia...", same with poligamy, same thing with slavery, same thing with genoside and torture. Nobody argues for those other things just because they have been with us for millenia.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SeppiChicago  • 8 hours ago 




Strong questions are good. It means they aren't taking this lightly.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Lightman  • 8 hours ago 




Two words about old institutions: Dred Scott
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > David Lightman  • 7 hours ago 




Two more: Antonin Scalia.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bryan  • 8 hours ago 




Justice Kennedy said gay couples were the ones who were standing ready to adopt unwanted, out-of-wedlock children. So that line of argument cuts against the states, he said.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 9 hours ago 




Here is the audio for the first 90 minutes:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Disqusdmnj  • 9 hours ago 




There are times when I'm truly embarrassed by fellow homo sapiens.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
danolgb  • 9 hours ago 




I do hope that our lawyers were prepared for this. Our culture tends to act as if nothing was happening outside a small area of the world geography, when in fact, there are cultures that did celebrate same gendered unions millennia ago. They're just not in the general area covered in the bible.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ericpayne  • 9 hours ago 




When I saw that question pop up at SCOTUSblog... my thoughts exactly. Well, not exactly... I tend to think "Oh shit!" in uh-oh moments.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale  • 3 hours ago 




When Jefferson considered the issue of keeping the status quo in the law just because that was the way things have always been, he said this:
"...laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 7 hours ago 




And for more than a millennia - it was defined that the sun did in fact orbit the earth.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustDucky  • 7 hours ago 




"This definition has been with us for millennia, and I think it's very difficult for this court to say we know better."
Our Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law, has been with us for 226 years, and this court is required to uphold it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Igby  • 8 hours ago 




I'm not so sure that this is an "Uh Oh". In the end, these two questions must be decided by the court based on the U. S. Constitution. The Constitution is only 228 years old. I'm not losing heart just yet.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




Btw, for those wondering about what would happen if there was a 6-3 ruling, here it is per SCOTUSBLOG.
If any Justice's vote is not essential to the majority (i.e., the case is decided at least 6-3), then the other Justices can write their own concurring opinion articulating a broader rule. If five Justices join such an opinion, then it becomes the majority opinion, and the narrower opinion will become the concurrence. But do I think that such a result would be likely in this case? Not really.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Ninja0980  • 8 hours ago 




It's important to note that there can also be a plurality rather than a majority. It's extremely rare, but it has happened - where a majority of justices agree on WHAT should happen but no clear majority agrees on why.
The result in those cases is that whatever they agree on is binding, but what they don't agree on is not.
So if three justices rule that marriage must be allowed because it's a fundamental right, but make no ruling on heightened scrutiny, and three justices rule that marriage must be allowed because LGBT people deserve heightened scrutiny but that same-sex marriage is not the same as straight marriage, you'd end up with marriage being mandated but no precedent going forward.
I'd be stunned if that happened. I expect a majority ruling for marriage as a fundamental right, with a possible "concurring in part and dissenting in part" minority stating that heightened scrutiny applies across the board (though I won't be surprised if they kick that question down the road again.)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GuestStop  • an hour ago 




Kennedy, the definition of why you should be forced to pass an intelligence quiz before you can hold any authority.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
AtticCrazy  • 2 hours ago 




My feeling is we're going to lose this battle. I felt it as soon as the discussion about allowing the equality to evolve naturally in each state because it will make people feel better about the change than if the court "just gives it to us".
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. It will be 20-30 years more before the United States sees full marriage equality.
I feel sick to my stomach.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 7 hours ago 




Interestingly, this sound bite was early and was a rhetorical statement to our lawyer to start the conversation on tradition vs the constitution. Later interventions by Kennedy sound more positive.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Belthazar  • 7 hours ago 




Having done oral arguments (not before SCOTUS), sometimes you are not given the opportunity to respond directly to a question or statement and have to weave it into other answers. Nevertheless, I'm not finding this as ominous as others.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 8 hours ago 




I'm not going to listen to 90 minutes. Could someone be kind enough to provide the context of this statement? Who did he address this to? What was the question? What was said before and after? This might help.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 7 hours ago 




The transcript is available now:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Thank you. I found it. The "sound bite" sounds more devastating than the exchange (p 2). Kennedy was throwing a rhetorical ball about the passage of time (the reference to millenia was from the other side's arguments) in our lawyer's court and she responded.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Lawerence Collins  • 8 hours ago 




This and the King lawsuit have me beyond fucked up. The anxiety, depression. I wanna scream till the earth shakes.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
danolgb  • 8 hours ago 




Bloomberg is already on this..
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JoeyKY  • 9 hours ago 




we're screwed.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > JoeyKY  • 9 hours ago 




scroll down for relief.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KT  • 9 hours ago 




Apparently even Breyer was asking skeptical questions and Kagan has been quite quiet. God damn I kinda hate the Supreme Court right now.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > KT  • 9 hours ago 




If it helps... This isn't where the real decision is made.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KT > Frank Butterfield  • 9 hours ago 




I know but it doesn't fill me with hope. I never thought the Supreme Court would gut the Civil Rights Act but they did. Now I fear they will take a wait and see approach and give us a faulty ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > KT  • 9 hours ago 




So, I guess that didn't help... ;-)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MickinDetroit  • 9 hours ago 




here comes the baby splitting....
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robincho  • 5 hours ago 




MILLENNIUM is the Latin for "a thousand years."
MILLENNIA is the Latin for "thousands of years."
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 9 hours ago 




No, this definition -- the exclusion of same-sex couples -- has been with us since 372 CE ("AD" for the traditionalists).
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


Avatar






http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/uh-oh.html#disqus_thread














     

  <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;ord=1430268743;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOxnYYJgQJ1ZMoWZYCoFsiRHK0BVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAse8AAgQAAQIAAIYAHhj8JgAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fuh-oh.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOxnYYJgQJ1ZMoWZYCoFsiRHK0BVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAse8AAgQAAQIAAIYAHhj8JgAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fuh-oh.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430268743?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430268743?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Uh Oh







Labels: Anthony Kennedy, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       158 Comments 
 
  comments powered by Disqus   
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D268745449%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D%2D6195594374943906186%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E26887%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E12%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdSIb2EKAAc%5Fkm9MMoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABw%2DDZA8gBwqykldAp2gEULTYxOTU1OTQzNzQ5NDM5MDYxODblAcTLKzzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAzAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=268745449?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=268745449;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=%2D6195594374943906186;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.26887,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.12;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdSIb2EKAAc_km9MMoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABw-DZA8gBwqykldAp2gEULTYxOTU1OTQzNzQ5NDM5MDYxODblAcTLKzzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAzAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=268745449?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=268745449?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/uh-oh.html#disqus_thread











     

  <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;ord=1430268743;click=http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOxnYYJgQJ1ZMoWZYCoFsiRHK0BVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAse8AAgQAAQIAAIYAHhj8JgAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fuh-oh.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=;?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOlm8QgsLI_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOxnYYJgQJ1ZMoWZYCoFsiRHK0BVAAAAAGfKEgDtBgAA7QYAAAIAAACmFMAA9D0DAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDQCAAAse8AAgQAAQIAAIYAHhj8JgAAAAA./cnd=%21QAb0OAi5pbwBEKapgAYY9PsMIAQ./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F04%2Fuh-oh.html%23disqus_thread/clickenc=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430268743?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N7296.132180.GAYADNETWORK/B7734989.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=1430268743?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Uh Oh







Labels: Anthony Kennedy, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       158 Comments 
 
  comments powered by Disqus   
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D268745449%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D%2D6195594374943906186%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E26887%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E12%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdSIb2EKAAc%5Fkm9MMoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABw%2DDZA8gBwqykldAp2gEULTYxOTU1OTQzNzQ5NDM5MDYxODblAcTLKzzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAzAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=268745449?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=268745449;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=%2D6195594374943906186;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.26887,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.12;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdSIb2EKAAc_km9MMoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABw-DZA8gBwqykldAp2gEULTYxOTU1OTQzNzQ5NDM5MDYxODblAcTLKzzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAzAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=268745449?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=268745449?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/uh-oh.html#disqus_thread











  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Ken Jeong Photobombs Kate Upton's GQ Photo Shoot  GQ 




The AeroBurner Driver, With The Largest Speed Pocket Ever  TaylorMade Golf 




The Best Way To Remove Eye Bags Without Surgery  Wrinkle Free Face 




60 Year Old Grandma Looks 30  Her Life & Beauty 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Here Is Todays SCOTUS Protester   126 comments 


 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   124 comments 


 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   60 comments 






 34 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
TampaZeke  • 9 hours ago 




OUTRAGE! CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION! RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION!
QUICK, Someone set up a GoFundMe page!!!
BENGHAZI!!!
 
18 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
dalnat > TampaZeke  • 7 hours ago 




Exactly. He and the other (2nd question) protester will be lauded as Righteous Christians™ for their courageous stand against homofascist tyranny, for "speaking gawd's truth."
If, however, it had it been one from our side, shouting "Gay rights are human rights!" or "Equal Justice Under Law" or something similar, the RWNJs would be screaming, "What an outrageously disrespectful act!!! It's an affront to all Americans!!!" "We simply cannot trust these people!!! They continue to show they're incapable of conducting themselves in a civil manner!!!!" "They don't deserve citizenship, much less equal rights!!!" etc.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 9 hours ago 




Who knew you could get animus delivered for lunch, even at the office!!!
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Hunter M  • 9 hours ago 




We are blessed by the caliber of our enemy.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




yeah, an anti-gay nutjob from what others have reported, though nothing specific about what he said.
and then there's this, which happened later, i think

  

 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TampaZeke > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Towleroad is reporting that he screamed, "Homosexuality is an abomination!"
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Polterguest > TampaZeke  • 9 hours ago 




Are they sure it isn't Scalia?
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Polterguest  • 9 hours ago 




Maybe Thomas finally decided to speak up in oral arguments...
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Gest2016 > TampaZeke  • 9 hours ago 




I thought I heard hiim shout "Homosexuality is an enticing option!" but maybe I'm just not fully awake yet.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Yeah my understanding was that it was to deferent anti-gay protestors at two different points, because the other side is unable to behave themselves. At least things are staying calm outside.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
jimbo65  • 9 hours ago 




The real outrage is that had Reagan not slashed mental health care, this zealot would be getting the mental health treatment he so desperately needs.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > jimbo65  • 9 hours ago 




Only if about half the churches in the US were converted to mental health care facilities.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jimbo65 > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




Yeah you're right. Religious fanatatics are probably the undiagnosed mentally ill. ;)
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > jimbo65  • 9 hours ago 




Once you sort the grifters and the sheep out.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh > David L. Caster  • 8 hours ago 




That sounds like a pretty good way to repurpose churches as congregations dwindle.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




Whomever it was will not go to jail, Janet.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike  • 9 hours ago 




A unanimous decision for equality might help calm the nation by showing a united front IS possible. I can dream.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Mike  • 9 hours ago 




OK, dream on, but be prepared for this question to split the court almost certainly.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mike > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




Preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, such a odd feeling having people voting on my human rights and awaiting the outcome, indescribable.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Mike  • 9 hours ago 




I understand.
The court needs to be brave on this one and just make the required tectonic shift needed to bring this whole sad chapter of American history to a conclusion by again slapping down the christianist dogma that has plagued this country since the planting of the first colonies.
This is a big change for the US. The religious nut-jobs are loud and organized and have been fighting any kind of recognition of the legitimacy of gay relationships. On the other hand, we have millions coming around to just how impossible the continued suppression of gay people is to justify.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David L. Caster > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




Because nothing convinces a Supreme Court justice like a raging outburst.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > teeveedub  • 8 hours ago 




It's somewhat like our very own Bill Perdue. Bill makes some good points, but his presentation of them discredits both them and him.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David L. Caster > teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




True that, but it shows just how passionate some people are about the question.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gest2016 > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




At this point I think there's a fine line between passion and dementia. There is a fairly strong correlation between old age and bigoted outbursts.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Antinousian  • 8 hours ago 




Please let it be Bryan Fischer. Please please please...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
AJD  • 9 hours ago 




I wonder if it might help us that the people on the other side are a bunch of loons.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Hard to tell from the reporting but it sounds like latter on a second anti-gay protestor was ejected from the courtroom as well, this one telling the justices that they would go to hell if they voted for same-sex marriage. all kinds of lovely people from the other side at SCOTUS today.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
Houndentenor  • 7 hours ago 




Thank you anonymous bearded man for making the case that the argument against gay marriage is based entirely on animus.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 8 hours ago 




Memo to SCOTUS: Does the reasoning behind these laws REALLY appear to be based on rational judgement ?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Silver_Witch  • 9 hours ago 




It is sad that people who are so blinded are also the loudest.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 9 hours ago 




The prof. wouldn't happen to be named Lopez ? :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell  • 9 hours ago 




The Oldz are revolting.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paula  • 6 hours ago 




Keep that hatred coming brother.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/protester-ejected-from-scotus-hearing.html#disqus_thread












  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Ken Jeong Photobombs Kate Upton's GQ Photo Shoot  GQ 




The AeroBurner Driver, With The Largest Speed Pocket Ever  TaylorMade Golf 




The Best Way To Remove Eye Bags Without Surgery  Wrinkle Free Face 




60 Year Old Grandma Looks 30  Her Life & Beauty 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Here Is Todays SCOTUS Protester   126 comments 


 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   124 comments 


 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   60 comments 






 34 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
TampaZeke  • 9 hours ago 




OUTRAGE! CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION! RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION!
QUICK, Someone set up a GoFundMe page!!!
BENGHAZI!!!
 
18 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
dalnat > TampaZeke  • 7 hours ago 




Exactly. He and the other (2nd question) protester will be lauded as Righteous Christians™ for their courageous stand against homofascist tyranny, for "speaking gawd's truth."
If, however, it had it been one from our side, shouting "Gay rights are human rights!" or "Equal Justice Under Law" or something similar, the RWNJs would be screaming, "What an outrageously disrespectful act!!! It's an affront to all Americans!!!" "We simply cannot trust these people!!! They continue to show they're incapable of conducting themselves in a civil manner!!!!" "They don't deserve citizenship, much less equal rights!!!" etc.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 9 hours ago 




Who knew you could get animus delivered for lunch, even at the office!!!
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Hunter M  • 9 hours ago 




We are blessed by the caliber of our enemy.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




yeah, an anti-gay nutjob from what others have reported, though nothing specific about what he said.
and then there's this, which happened later, i think

  

 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TampaZeke > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Towleroad is reporting that he screamed, "Homosexuality is an abomination!"
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Polterguest > TampaZeke  • 9 hours ago 




Are they sure it isn't Scalia?
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Polterguest  • 9 hours ago 




Maybe Thomas finally decided to speak up in oral arguments...
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Gest2016 > TampaZeke  • 9 hours ago 




I thought I heard hiim shout "Homosexuality is an enticing option!" but maybe I'm just not fully awake yet.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




Yeah my understanding was that it was to deferent anti-gay protestors at two different points, because the other side is unable to behave themselves. At least things are staying calm outside.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
jimbo65  • 9 hours ago 




The real outrage is that had Reagan not slashed mental health care, this zealot would be getting the mental health treatment he so desperately needs.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > jimbo65  • 9 hours ago 




Only if about half the churches in the US were converted to mental health care facilities.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jimbo65 > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




Yeah you're right. Religious fanatatics are probably the undiagnosed mentally ill. ;)
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > jimbo65  • 9 hours ago 




Once you sort the grifters and the sheep out.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh > David L. Caster  • 8 hours ago 




That sounds like a pretty good way to repurpose churches as congregations dwindle.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




Whomever it was will not go to jail, Janet.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike  • 9 hours ago 




A unanimous decision for equality might help calm the nation by showing a united front IS possible. I can dream.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Mike  • 9 hours ago 




OK, dream on, but be prepared for this question to split the court almost certainly.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mike > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




Preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, such a odd feeling having people voting on my human rights and awaiting the outcome, indescribable.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > Mike  • 9 hours ago 




I understand.
The court needs to be brave on this one and just make the required tectonic shift needed to bring this whole sad chapter of American history to a conclusion by again slapping down the christianist dogma that has plagued this country since the planting of the first colonies.
This is a big change for the US. The religious nut-jobs are loud and organized and have been fighting any kind of recognition of the legitimacy of gay relationships. On the other hand, we have millions coming around to just how impossible the continued suppression of gay people is to justify.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David L. Caster > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




Because nothing convinces a Supreme Court justice like a raging outburst.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > teeveedub  • 8 hours ago 




It's somewhat like our very own Bill Perdue. Bill makes some good points, but his presentation of them discredits both them and him.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David L. Caster > teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




True that, but it shows just how passionate some people are about the question.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gest2016 > David L. Caster  • 9 hours ago 




At this point I think there's a fine line between passion and dementia. There is a fairly strong correlation between old age and bigoted outbursts.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Antinousian  • 8 hours ago 




Please let it be Bryan Fischer. Please please please...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
AJD  • 9 hours ago 




I wonder if it might help us that the people on the other side are a bunch of loons.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Hard to tell from the reporting but it sounds like latter on a second anti-gay protestor was ejected from the courtroom as well, this one telling the justices that they would go to hell if they voted for same-sex marriage. all kinds of lovely people from the other side at SCOTUS today.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
Houndentenor  • 7 hours ago 




Thank you anonymous bearded man for making the case that the argument against gay marriage is based entirely on animus.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 8 hours ago 




Memo to SCOTUS: Does the reasoning behind these laws REALLY appear to be based on rational judgement ?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Silver_Witch  • 9 hours ago 




It is sad that people who are so blinded are also the loudest.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 9 hours ago 




The prof. wouldn't happen to be named Lopez ? :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell  • 9 hours ago 




The Oldz are revolting.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paula  • 6 hours ago 




Keep that hatred coming brother.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/protester-ejected-from-scotus-hearing.html#disqus_thread












     


   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing





Via the Guardian:
A protester has been removed from the supreme court after a “big outburst”, reports SCOTUSblog’s Eric Citron and the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly. From Citron: “A protestor has just been removed from the Courtroom – it came immediately after the petitioner’s argument. Hard to hear what he’s saying, and he’s been removed.” Citron’s colleague Tejinder Singh says he “could hear the man continuing to shout as the guards escorted him from the courtroom and into the building. The Supreme Court building is not the best, acoustically, so it was hard to make out what he was saying, but it sounded like an anti-same-sex marriage rant.”


More from the Wall Street Journal: "As the first segment of the argument came to a close, an older man with white hair and beard stood up in the courtroom and screamed, 'Homosexuality is an abomination!' and something about how if the court allows it, that would be terrible. He continued screaming as officers removed him from the courtroom. Even through closed doors, he could be heard inside the courtroom screaming the same over and over as he was taken away."
Labels: marriage equality, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       34 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D269442409%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D%2D6333379733590994239%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E77976%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E148%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdbAknUKAAYG%2D5ZoDoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABrr%5FNAsgBqfjOldAp2gEULTYzMzMzNzk3MzM1OTA5OTQyMznlAen7JTzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QJTAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=269442409?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=269442409;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=%2D6333379733590994239;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.77976,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.148;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdbAknUKAAYG-5ZoDoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABrr_NAsgBqfjOldAp2gEULTYzMzMzNzk3MzM1OTA5OTQyMznlAen7JTzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QJTAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269442409?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269442409?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/protester-ejected-from-scotus-hearing.html#disqus_thread











     


   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing





Via the Guardian:
A protester has been removed from the supreme court after a “big outburst”, reports SCOTUSblog’s Eric Citron and the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly. From Citron: “A protestor has just been removed from the Courtroom – it came immediately after the petitioner’s argument. Hard to hear what he’s saying, and he’s been removed.” Citron’s colleague Tejinder Singh says he “could hear the man continuing to shout as the guards escorted him from the courtroom and into the building. The Supreme Court building is not the best, acoustically, so it was hard to make out what he was saying, but it sounded like an anti-same-sex marriage rant.”


More from the Wall Street Journal: "As the first segment of the argument came to a close, an older man with white hair and beard stood up in the courtroom and screamed, 'Homosexuality is an abomination!' and something about how if the court allows it, that would be terrible. He continued screaming as officers removed him from the courtroom. Even through closed doors, he could be heard inside the courtroom screaming the same over and over as he was taken away."
Labels: marriage equality, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
      34 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D269442409%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D%2D6333379733590994239%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E77976%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E148%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdbAknUKAAYG%2D5ZoDoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABrr%5FNAsgBqfjOldAp2gEULTYzMzMzNzk3MzM1OTA5OTQyMznlAen7JTzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QJTAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=269442409?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=269442409;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=%2D6333379733590994239;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.77976,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.148;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdbAknUKAAYG-5ZoDoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABrr_NAsgBqfjOldAp2gEULTYzMzMzNzk3MzM1OTA5OTQyMznlAen7JTzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QJTAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269442409?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269442409?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/protester-ejected-from-scotus-hearing.html#disqus_thread




















  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



10 Celebs You Had No Clue Were Married To Each Other  Answers.com 




Young Millionaires Flock to Wealthfront  TechCrunch 




Avoid Surgery, Easiest Way to Remove Eye Bags  Wrinkle Free Face 




Forget 'Googling' Their Name, Use This New Site!  Instant Checkmate 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Early Reports As Hearings Conclude   119 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   211 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  81 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   123 comments 






 69 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Dramphooey  • 10 hours ago 




These are nice photos and they made me smile. Everyone on our side looks happy. The same can't be said of the miserable people opposing us.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Dramphooey  • 10 hours ago 




I think a lot of them desperately want others to be as miserable as they are.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > KnownDonorDad  • 10 hours ago 




If you're not miserable, you're not holy. It's the Puritan way.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Paula > Dramphooey  • 4 hours ago 




I'd want to be in front of the Hasids (?) with a sign that reads " These guys need a shower!"
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Paula  • 2 hours ago 




And they need to wash their clothes more often than once in five years.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Todd20036  • 10 hours ago 




Funny how our side is celebratory and full of love and life. Their side speaks of sin, hell, God's wrath, and barely concealed hatred.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeffrey > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




Their side always has something to sell, like how amazing it's gonna be once you finally die. Our side is the one that is actually about life.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joe in PA > Todd20036  • 10 hours ago 




Like this guy...
 
Thumbnail
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




It would appear he shaves his head in violation of Leviticus 19:27
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




Wow, he needs to brush up on prepositions.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeffrey > KnownDonorDad  • 10 hours ago 




Exactly what I was thinking. I hate to be a grammar nazi, but your shirt says that God is the same thing as sodomy and I'm not sure that's the message you're trying to send.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dramphooey > Jeffrey  • 9 hours ago 




It's really nothing but a string of words.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeffrey > Dramphooey  • 9 hours ago 




Conservatives are the masters of word salad
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dramphooey > Jeffrey  • 9 hours ago 




Yes, indeed!
 
Thumbnail
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Dramphooey  • 9 hours ago 




Bloom County!!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks > Jeffrey  • 9 hours ago 




Someone in Alaska refudiates that, you betcha.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh > Dramphooey  • 8 hours ago 




All the more reason for the school systems to tighten their fundoshis and teach kids to write decent prose as soon as they can write physically.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > RoFaWh  • 2 hours ago 




I am so disappoint! Here I use an idiom I bet no one has ever heard before ("to tighten one's fundoshi") and not a peep from the commentariat.
Slackers.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
KCMC > Jeffrey  • 7 hours ago 




curious as God may be called out during sodomy.
(at my house)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
tcinsf > Joe in PA  • 9 hours ago 




I see "the book of Mormon" and all I can think of is the opening number ...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
William > Joe in PA  • 9 hours ago 




What, nothing about eating shellfish or getting tattoos?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TheManicMechanic > Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




In that same book, I am given the right to kill this guy because his shirt is made from fabric and also contains another material making up the lettering. BOOM! Headshot!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KCMC > Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




That's not the musical, right?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe in PA > KCMC  • 7 hours ago 




As Maude would say...god'll get you for that Walter. :)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JJS_prime > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




We believe in love; they believe in a god that hates everyone.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RobynWatts  • 9 hours ago 




Slightly OT, but I'm watching C-Span 3 and that moron Rep. Steve King is once again yammering about his bill about stripping federal rulings. Iowa, please do a better job in keeping your toxic waste in your state.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > RobynWatts  • 9 hours ago 




Louie Gohmert also made an appearance but C-span cut away from him right after he started talking, not even worth covering.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David L. Caster  • 10 hours ago 




Being hopeful and happy makes a difference. Those that love will always be better off and healthier than those that don't.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Toasterlad  • 10 hours ago 




I LOVE that "Your Beard Is Hot!" sign.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 10 hours ago 




Your beard is hot!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dramphooey > oikos  • 10 hours ago 




John Travolta's wife is present?
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JJS_prime  • 9 hours ago 




Who cares what you claim the torah says? Judaism is not the official religion of the US anymore than "christianty" is. Besides, your flag is the wrong color(s).
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok  • 10 hours ago 




Would be so great to be there.- thx father Tony
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




There are lot of great supporters outside today and they are
doing a great job confronting the anti-gays who are out there and standing up for equality. A big thank you to anyone who reads this who was out there today, great job.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SpiderPIG > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




The bald idiot screaming insults with the megaphone is the same guy featured (for a second) on the HBO Prop 8 documentary, he was doing the same shit in the day in court as well.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Scooter1211  • 9 hours ago 




Satan himself at SCOTUS
 
Thumbnail
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks > Scooter1211  • 9 hours ago 




Is that Bri-Bri?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Scooter1211 > Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks  • 9 hours ago 




In the flesh
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ClevelandJim > Scooter1211  • 3 hours ago 




He looks thinner...P90X? lmao
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MrVinegar  • 9 hours ago 




So many smiles! I love it!
I also love me some Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Dee Linder  • 10 hours ago 




I wish so bad that i could be in DC today...
THANK YOU, FATHER TONY!!!!!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > Dee Linder  • 10 hours ago 




I do too. The wife can't go and I didn't want to go alone as well as the protests not far from home. They just lifted an military ER helicopter from the military air base next door headed toward town. We had them buzzing us all night long.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
SpiderPIG  • 10 hours ago 




Would it be OK to tweet these pictures, Father Tony?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JoeMyGod Mod > SpiderPIG  • 10 hours ago 




Use them however you please.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SpiderPIG > JoeMyGod  • 9 hours ago 




I'm getting requests to re-use the pics in other blogs, is it OK too? (just to be sure)
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JoeMyGod Mod > SpiderPIG  • 9 hours ago 




Sure.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




Speaking of clergy...I got a hug from bishop Gene Robinson.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




Are you there Joe?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe in PA > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




I'm here! Well, I was...I'm down the street at the moment catching some WIFI. Things broke up pretty quickly after everyone left the courthouse. I heard the plaintiffs speak which was great, but not from the lawyers. ;( They were talking to the press...so I'm trying to find that online.
The speeches from the RWNJs were nauseating as you can imagine. I'm not surprised Joe doesn't have coverage of that...the sound quality was BAD. It was a veritable who's-who of haters though: Perkins, Rios, Gohmert, Huskersomething from Kansas, the ever-so-light-on-his-feet Ryan Anderson and a bunch more that I've seen JMG report on but can't recall their names. Oh, and Santorum's daughter! It was quite interesting to be so close.
BTW, I'm here with a WIFI-only iPad so I have to find hotspots where I can (how do I stand it?). ;)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




Our friend...Porno Pete...on his knees. Oh my.
 
Thumbnail
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > Joe in PA  • 4 hours ago 




Got to love the sign held together by PVC pipe and wire. lol
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Cricket  • 10 hours ago 




Thanks, Father Tony!!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




Here's a picture...so many YOUNG people...which is fab!
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus  • 10 hours ago 




i'm holding some beads. they are filled with memory, and happiness.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SpiderPIG  • 7 hours ago 




Ha! I tweeted some of these pictures and I used the #SCOTUSmarriage hashtag, which the "other side" is using too.
Suddenly I have people with the words "God" in their profile's name following me. (I get those from time to time, some Pastors too...)
Are they planning on "saving me"? Good luck with that.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > SpiderPIG  • 6 hours ago 




Safer to remain just outside the reach of redemption.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
biki > SpiderPIG  • 5 hours ago 




They might attempt to save you on their knees, and I'm sure you'd let them give it a good try!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Pete  • 8 hours ago 




Elizabeth Santorum, daughter of you know whom, took the podium and microphone outside the court for a few minutes. Evidently she is also in the family anti-gay business. She was loudly booed when introduced.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > Pete  • 8 hours ago 




She should just be happy she didn't end up in a jar.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks  • 9 hours ago 




Love the 70s Polaroid look of the colors in the photos. How did he do that?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
johncAtl > Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks  • 9 hours ago 




On an iPhone using the filter of Process will give that kind of tinted look.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JCF  • 6 hours ago 




"Your Beard is Hot!"
Q: Which one's the beard?
A: They ALL are!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BudClark  • 6 hours ago 




The ultra-orthodox Jews have a BIGGER same-sex child molestation problem than the Roman Catholic Church, and they want to demonstrate against OUR right to marry??!!
FUCK THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > BudClark  • 5 hours ago 




Really? I had no idea!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > biki  • 4 hours ago 




Yes there have been a few really big scandals at Yeshivas and Rabbis convicted of raping boys. This has been a problem for years, but only recently has the culture changed enough that people are speaking out and pressing charges.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Pete  • 8 hours ago 




A contingent of about 30 utra-orthodox jewish men in full black drag and long side curls and beards lined the north side of the Court, holding signs quoting the torah.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
neonzx  • 10 hours ago 




cspan3 has live coverage outside the courthouse.
Scotusblog has coverage from inside the court (but limited due to rules and logistics)
http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
GuestStop  • 2 hours ago 




Someone needs to tell them that, despite all the massive asskissing, this is the united states, NOT Israel. Your book of fairytales and myths is as relevant as Fartman.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JD  • 4 hours ago 




Bonus points for trolling the Hasidim!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/outside-supreme-court.html#disqus_thread








  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



10 Celebs You Had No Clue Were Married To Each Other  Answers.com 




Young Millionaires Flock to Wealthfront  TechCrunch 




Avoid Surgery, Easiest Way to Remove Eye Bags  Wrinkle Free Face 




Forget 'Googling' Their Name, Use This New Site!  Instant Checkmate 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Early Reports As Hearings Conclude   119 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   211 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  81 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   123 comments 






 69 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Dramphooey  • 10 hours ago 




These are nice photos and they made me smile. Everyone on our side looks happy. The same can't be said of the miserable people opposing us.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Dramphooey  • 10 hours ago 




I think a lot of them desperately want others to be as miserable as they are.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > KnownDonorDad  • 10 hours ago 




If you're not miserable, you're not holy. It's the Puritan way.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Paula > Dramphooey  • 4 hours ago 




I'd want to be in front of the Hasids (?) with a sign that reads " These guys need a shower!"
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Paula  • 2 hours ago 




And they need to wash their clothes more often than once in five years.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Todd20036  • 10 hours ago 




Funny how our side is celebratory and full of love and life. Their side speaks of sin, hell, God's wrath, and barely concealed hatred.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeffrey > Todd20036  • 10 hours ago 




Their side always has something to sell, like how amazing it's gonna be once you finally die. Our side is the one that is actually about life.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joe in PA > Todd20036  • 10 hours ago 




Like this guy...
 
Thumbnail
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




It would appear he shaves his head in violation of Leviticus 19:27
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




Wow, he needs to brush up on prepositions.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeffrey > KnownDonorDad  • 10 hours ago 




Exactly what I was thinking. I hate to be a grammar nazi, but your shirt says that God is the same thing as sodomy and I'm not sure that's the message you're trying to send.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dramphooey > Jeffrey  • 10 hours ago 




It's really nothing but a string of words.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeffrey > Dramphooey  • 9 hours ago 




Conservatives are the masters of word salad
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dramphooey > Jeffrey  • 9 hours ago 




Yes, indeed!
 
Thumbnail
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Dramphooey  • 9 hours ago 




Bloom County!!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks > Jeffrey  • 9 hours ago 




Someone in Alaska refudiates that, you betcha.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh > Dramphooey  • 8 hours ago 




All the more reason for the school systems to tighten their fundoshis and teach kids to write decent prose as soon as they can write physically.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > RoFaWh  • 2 hours ago 




I am so disappoint! Here I use an idiom I bet no one has ever heard before ("to tighten one's fundoshi") and not a peep from the commentariat.
Slackers.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
KCMC > Jeffrey  • 7 hours ago 




curious as God may be called out during sodomy.
(at my house)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
tcinsf > Joe in PA  • 9 hours ago 




I see "the book of Mormon" and all I can think of is the opening number ...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
William > Joe in PA  • 9 hours ago 




What, nothing about eating shellfish or getting tattoos?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TheManicMechanic > Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




In that same book, I am given the right to kill this guy because his shirt is made from fabric and also contains another material making up the lettering. BOOM! Headshot!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KCMC > Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




That's not the musical, right?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe in PA > KCMC  • 7 hours ago 




As Maude would say...god'll get you for that Walter. :)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JJS_prime > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




We believe in love; they believe in a god that hates everyone.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RobynWatts  • 10 hours ago 




Slightly OT, but I'm watching C-Span 3 and that moron Rep. Steve King is once again yammering about his bill about stripping federal rulings. Iowa, please do a better job in keeping your toxic waste in your state.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > RobynWatts  • 9 hours ago 




Louie Gohmert also made an appearance but C-span cut away from him right after he started talking, not even worth covering.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David L. Caster  • 10 hours ago 




Being hopeful and happy makes a difference. Those that love will always be better off and healthier than those that don't.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Toasterlad  • 10 hours ago 




I LOVE that "Your Beard Is Hot!" sign.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 10 hours ago 




Your beard is hot!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dramphooey > oikos  • 10 hours ago 




John Travolta's wife is present?
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JJS_prime  • 9 hours ago 




Who cares what you claim the torah says? Judaism is not the official religion of the US anymore than "christianty" is. Besides, your flag is the wrong color(s).
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok  • 10 hours ago 




Would be so great to be there.- thx father Tony
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




There are lot of great supporters outside today and they are
doing a great job confronting the anti-gays who are out there and standing up for equality. A big thank you to anyone who reads this who was out there today, great job.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SpiderPIG > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




The bald idiot screaming insults with the megaphone is the same guy featured (for a second) on the HBO Prop 8 documentary, he was doing the same shit in the day in court as well.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Scooter1211  • 9 hours ago 




Satan himself at SCOTUS
 
Thumbnail
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks > Scooter1211  • 9 hours ago 




Is that Bri-Bri?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Scooter1211 > Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks  • 9 hours ago 




In the flesh
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ClevelandJim > Scooter1211  • 3 hours ago 




He looks thinner...P90X? lmao
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MrVinegar  • 9 hours ago 




So many smiles! I love it!
I also love me some Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Dee Linder  • 10 hours ago 




I wish so bad that i could be in DC today...
THANK YOU, FATHER TONY!!!!!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > Dee Linder  • 10 hours ago 




I do too. The wife can't go and I didn't want to go alone as well as the protests not far from home. They just lifted an military ER helicopter from the military air base next door headed toward town. We had them buzzing us all night long.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
SpiderPIG  • 10 hours ago 




Would it be OK to tweet these pictures, Father Tony?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JoeMyGod Mod > SpiderPIG  • 10 hours ago 




Use them however you please.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SpiderPIG > JoeMyGod  • 9 hours ago 




I'm getting requests to re-use the pics in other blogs, is it OK too? (just to be sure)
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JoeMyGod Mod > SpiderPIG  • 9 hours ago 




Sure.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




Speaking of clergy...I got a hug from bishop Gene Robinson.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Joe in PA  • 10 hours ago 




Are you there Joe?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe in PA > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




I'm here! Well, I was...I'm down the street at the moment catching some WIFI. Things broke up pretty quickly after everyone left the courthouse. I heard the plaintiffs speak which was great, but not from the lawyers. ;( They were talking to the press...so I'm trying to find that online.
The speeches from the RWNJs were nauseating as you can imagine. I'm not surprised Joe doesn't have coverage of that...the sound quality was BAD. It was a veritable who's-who of haters though: Perkins, Rios, Gohmert, Huskersomething from Kansas, the ever-so-light-on-his-feet Ryan Anderson and a bunch more that I've seen JMG report on but can't recall their names. Oh, and Santorum's daughter! It was quite interesting to be so close.
BTW, I'm here with a WIFI-only iPad so I have to find hotspots where I can (how do I stand it?). ;)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




Our friend...Porno Pete...on his knees. Oh my.
 
Thumbnail
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > Joe in PA  • 4 hours ago 




Got to love the sign held together by PVC pipe and wire. lol
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Cricket  • 10 hours ago 




Thanks, Father Tony!!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Joe in PA  • 7 hours ago 




Here's a picture...so many YOUNG people...which is fab!
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus  • 10 hours ago 




i'm holding some beads. they are filled with memory, and happiness.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SpiderPIG  • 7 hours ago 




Ha! I tweeted some of these pictures and I used the #SCOTUSmarriage hashtag, which the "other side" is using too.
Suddenly I have people with the words "God" in their profile's name following me. (I get those from time to time, some Pastors too...)
Are they planning on "saving me"? Good luck with that.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David L. Caster > SpiderPIG  • 6 hours ago 




Safer to remain just outside the reach of redemption.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
biki > SpiderPIG  • 5 hours ago 




They might attempt to save you on their knees, and I'm sure you'd let them give it a good try!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Pete  • 8 hours ago 




Elizabeth Santorum, daughter of you know whom, took the podium and microphone outside the court for a few minutes. Evidently she is also in the family anti-gay business. She was loudly booed when introduced.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > Pete  • 8 hours ago 




She should just be happy she didn't end up in a jar.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks  • 9 hours ago 




Love the 70s Polaroid look of the colors in the photos. How did he do that?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
johncAtl > Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks  • 9 hours ago 




On an iPhone using the filter of Process will give that kind of tinted look.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JCF  • 6 hours ago 




"Your Beard is Hot!"
Q: Which one's the beard?
A: They ALL are!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BudClark  • 7 hours ago 




The ultra-orthodox Jews have a BIGGER same-sex child molestation problem than the Roman Catholic Church, and they want to demonstrate against OUR right to marry??!!
FUCK THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > BudClark  • 5 hours ago 




Really? I had no idea!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > biki  • 4 hours ago 




Yes there have been a few really big scandals at Yeshivas and Rabbis convicted of raping boys. This has been a problem for years, but only recently has the culture changed enough that people are speaking out and pressing charges.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Pete  • 8 hours ago 




A contingent of about 30 utra-orthodox jewish men in full black drag and long side curls and beards lined the north side of the Court, holding signs quoting the torah.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
neonzx  • 10 hours ago 




cspan3 has live coverage outside the courthouse.
Scotusblog has coverage from inside the court (but limited due to rules and logistics)
http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
GuestStop  • 2 hours ago 




Someone needs to tell them that, despite all the massive asskissing, this is the united states, NOT Israel. Your book of fairytales and myths is as relevant as Fartman.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JD  • 4 hours ago 




Bonus points for trolling the Hasidim!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/outside-supreme-court.html#disqus_thread
















     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliati...
Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Outside The Supreme Court

















Photos by Father Tony.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       69 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D269941378%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D%2D481029966580977059%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E47416%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D64%2E95%2E38%2E78%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBddH3cUKAAdOAqN4MoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB1K%2DLAsgB5avtldAp2gETLTQ4MTAyOTk2NjU4MDk3NzA1OeUBEUUtPOgBZJgCw%5F8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8mTsACAsgCAA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=269941378?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=269941378;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=%2D481029966580977059;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.47416,_qc.template;rtbip=64.95.38.78;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBddH3cUKAAdOAqN4MoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB1K-LAsgB5avtldAp2gETLTQ4MTAyOTk2NjU4MDk3NzA1OeUBEUUtPOgBZJgCw_8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8mTsACAsgCAA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269941378?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269941378?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/outside-supreme-court.html#disqus_thread













     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliati...
Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Outside The Supreme Court

















Photos by Father Tony.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
      69 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D269941378%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D%2D481029966580977059%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E47416%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D64%2E95%2E38%2E78%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBddH3cUKAAdOAqN4MoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB1K%2DLAsgB5avtldAp2gETLTQ4MTAyOTk2NjU4MDk3NzA1OeUBEUUtPOgBZJgCw%5F8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8mTsACAsgCAA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=269941378?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=269941378;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=%2D481029966580977059;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.47416,_qc.template;rtbip=64.95.38.78;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBddH3cUKAAdOAqN4MoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB1K-LAsgB5avtldAp2gETLTQ4MTAyOTk2NjU4MDk3NzA1OeUBEUUtPOgBZJgCw_8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8mTsACAsgCAA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269941378?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=269941378?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/outside-supreme-court.html#disqus_thread







     


  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D263775633%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D%2D5332962704138964144%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E78364%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E7%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdZ6JWEKAAf7duuQPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABo5z4AcgB3YD1ktAp2gEULTUzMzI5NjI3MDQxMzg5NjQxNDTlAaRTMDzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAfAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=263775633?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=263775633;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=%2D5332962704138964144;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.78364,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.7;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdZ6JWEKAAf7duuQPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABo5z4AcgB3YD1ktAp2gEULTUzMzI5NjI3MDQxMzg5NjQxNDTlAaRTMDzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAfAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263775633?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263775633?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Here Is Today's SCOTUS Protester
Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex Couples D...
Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First
Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" Guy ...
Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must Sign Our Pledg...
Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win
Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS
NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided
NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Here Is Today's SCOTUS Protester





Today's Supreme Court hearing was momentarily disrupted by a man in the gallery who repeatedly screamed "homosexuality is an abomination" before being carted out by federal police. It turns out that the man is a well-known crackpot named Rives Miller Grogan, seen above in October 2011 when he ran on the field during a National League playoff game between the Cincinnati Reds and the San Francisco Giants.
 In 2012 Grogan was arrested by DC police after he climbed a tree during Obama's second inauguration to scream anti-Obama slogans. Grogan has disrupted many events around the nation and has been ejected from the US House and Senate galleries for screaming. In 2013 a DC district judge permanently banned Grogan from the city, spawning a freedom of speech debate.
“Banning him from the District because he’s sitting in a tree or speaking out, I think is absurd,” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a civil-liberties group that is taking up Grogan’s case. “He’s strange, but do you know how many strange people enter D.C. every day who probably shouldn’t be here?” Magistrate Judge Karen Howze signed the order Tuesday, telling Grogan to stay out of the city until a hearing Feb. 25. The order is more sweeping than what prosecutors had sought. The U.S. Attorney’s Office had asked that Grogan be banned from the Capitol grounds, House and Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. But Howze broadened the request as a condition of releasing Grogan from jail until his trial.
 Grogan, 47, who calls himself “Pastor Rick” and runs a ministry and boardinghouse in Los Angeles, admits he’s an irritant, racking up about 10 arrests and a half-dozen convictions in two years in House and Senate buildings alone. He said he patiently waits for the proceedings to be recessed before he stands and shouts, most recently in the Senate gallery when he screamed that legal abortions caused the massacre in Newtown, Conn. “I preach, and I preach loudly on Capitol Hill,” said Grogan, who said he’s never spent more than a few days in jail. He’s been thrown out of a presidential debate, a Major League Baseball game attended by Mitt Romney, and too many buildings to count.
Maybe now the Supreme Court will uphold that ban from DC.
Labels: crazy people, loony tunes, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       67 Comments 
   

Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex Couples Deserve Marriage Rights Now





"I am committed – as is this department – to ensuring equal dignity and equal treatment for all members of society, regardless of sexual orientation.  As we argued today before the Supreme Court, same-sex couples deserve that treatment now. " - Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Labels: DOJ, Loretta Lynch, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       39 Comments 
   

Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First





It's believed that this is a first for major league baseball:
"After consultation with Major League Baseball and city and local officials, tomorrow's game between the Orioles and Chicago White Sox will be closed to the public," the team said in a statement. "The Orioles will also play their three-game series against the Tampa Bay Rays, scheduled for May 1-3, at Tropicana Field in Florida, while serving as the home team." The announcement came one day after Orioles executive John Angelos, the son of team owner Peter Angelos, responded to criticism of the protestors with a lengthy statement that pointed towards "a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere…living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state."

Labels: Baltimore, baseball, civil unrest, riots


posted by Joe Jervis
       42 Comments 
   

Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" Guy About Yogurt Store Fracas



Via the St. Louis Fox affiliate:
“It’s a good thing you didn’t order hot fudge, huh? That could’ve been really bad,” host Jimmy Kimmel said. “Right, my skin would’ve been burnt,” Caldwell said. The cashier, Stephanie Diaz, was charged with third-degree assault. Diaz denies calling Caldwell a homosexual slur, adding that she is gay. Kimmel said his show contacted her to appear on the program, but her lawyers declined. “Will you be writing a negative Yelp review of the store?” Kimmel said. “Yes, I will,” Caldwell said, adding that he plans to sue the FroYo store. When asked how much he thinks he should get for his troubles, Caldwell plainly responded, “a couple million.” “That’s a lot of toppings,” Kimmel quipped.
(Tipped by JMG reader Scott)
Labels: Andrew Caldwell, ex-gay, still totally gay


posted by Joe Jervis
       78 Comments 
   

Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must Sign Our Pledge To Disobey SCOTUS



Huckabee and Santorum have already signed. Start at 3:30.

Labels: crackpots, crazy people, GOP, hate groups, Liberty Counsel, Mat Staver, Mike Huckabee, religion, Rick Santorum


posted by Joe Jervis
       112 Comments 
   

Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win







Anderson writes for the Heritage Foundation:
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
 Even Justice Stephen Breyer got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.”
 He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy. If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.
Earlier today Anderson boasted that it sounded like the justices have read his anti-gay marriage book.
Labels: crackpots, hate groups, Heritage Foundation, LGBT rights, marriage equality, religion, Ryan T. Anderson, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       198 Comments 
   

Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS







Labels: crackpots, hate groups, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       36 Comments 
   

NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided





The New York Times weighs in:
The justices appeared to clash over not only what is the right answer in the case but also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change. Justice Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for so many years. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.
 Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their religious teaching. Justice Stephen G. Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. And Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan said that allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.
 At the start of Tuesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Roberts said he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed, that definition will not be operable,” the Chief Justice said. “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”



Labels: Anthony Kennedy, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       120 Comments 
   

NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy





"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is. It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it. The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue. We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia – the union of one man and one woman. Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake – upending an institution that has served society well for millennia – and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage." - NOM chairman John Eastman, via press release.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, crackpots, hate groups, John Eastman, marriage equality, NOM, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       67 Comments 
   

Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys



Chris Geidner writes at Buzzfeed:
At Tuesday’s marriage arguments over same-sex couples’ marriage rights, the majority of the court appeared to be comfortable with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s understanding of human dignity as including gay people’s equal treatment under the law. While Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote in the case, did not make any unambiguous statement about the end result of the case, he harshly questioned the state of Michigan’s argument that it should be allowed to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.
 At one point, Kennedy commented to Michigan’s lawyer that its law banning same-sex couples from marrying “assumes” that those couples can’t have the same “more noble purpose” as opposite sex couples have for entering marriage. Joined often by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the lawyer defending marriage bans, John Bursch, faced repeated questions about what other limits states could constitutionally place on marriages and whether the states’ claimed interest amounted to anything more than, as Sotomayor asked, a “ceiling…that doesn’t have logic.”
Geidner notes that Chief Justice John Roberts did not appear to favor either side.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       147 Comments 
   

AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question






 The oral arguments for the second question considered today have been posted. Listen as the justices weigh whether states must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Labels: 14th Amendment, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       21 Comments 
   

Early Reports As Hearings Conclude

















Johnson reports for the Washington Blade.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Mary Bonauto, Michigan, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       119 Comments 
   

Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez









Labels: Antonin Scalia, crackpots, gay families, gay parenting, homocons, marriage equality, Robert Oscar Lopez, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       63 Comments 
   

AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments






 The 90-minute oral arguments for the first question considered today have been posted. Listen as the justices weigh whether the 14th Amendment guarantees marriage rights to all American citizens.
Labels: Jim Obergefell, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       28 Comments 
   

Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS







Labels: Gay Men's Chorus, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       4 Comments 
   

Uh Oh







Labels: Anthony Kennedy, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       156 Comments 
   

Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing





Via the Guardian:
A protester has been removed from the supreme court after a “big outburst”, reports SCOTUSblog’s Eric Citron and the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly. From Citron: “A protestor has just been removed from the Courtroom – it came immediately after the petitioner’s argument. Hard to hear what he’s saying, and he’s been removed.” Citron’s colleague Tejinder Singh says he “could hear the man continuing to shout as the guards escorted him from the courtroom and into the building. The Supreme Court building is not the best, acoustically, so it was hard to make out what he was saying, but it sounded like an anti-same-sex marriage rant.”


More from the Wall Street Journal: "As the first segment of the argument came to a close, an older man with white hair and beard stood up in the courtroom and screamed, 'Homosexuality is an abomination!' and something about how if the court allows it, that would be terrible. He continued screaming as officers removed him from the courtroom. Even through closed doors, he could be heard inside the courtroom screaming the same over and over as he was taken away."
Labels: marriage equality, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       34 Comments 
   

Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally Send Christians To Jail





Labels: crazy people, hate groups, Janet Porter, loony tunes


posted by Joe Jervis
       60 Comments 
   

Outside The Supreme Court

















Photos by Father Tony.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       68 Comments 
   

PBS Examines Kentucky's Case



"On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear cases from four states that currently have gay marriage bans: Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky. The NewsHour talked to two different Kentucky families whose personal stories launched the court case."

Labels: Kentucky, marriage equality, PBS, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       66 Comments 
   

SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging





SCOTUSblog will be live-blogging shortly.
Labels: marriage equality, SCOTUS, SCOTUSblog


posted by Joe Jervis
       199 Comments 
   

Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS





Christine "Monster Energy Drink is by Satan" Weick has taken time off from disrupting Muslim events to protest outside the Supreme Court, where she just told C-SPAN that "God will remove his protecting hand from America" if they rule for same-sex marriage.
Labels: Christine Weick, crackpots, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       91 Comments 
   

IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality




(Tipped by JMG reader Erik)
Labels: Ben And Jerry's, Ireland, marriage equality


posted by Joe Jervis
       6 Comments 
   

Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow





Hillary Clinton's social media accounts just swapped out the campaign's logo for the above rainbow version.
Labels: 2016 elections, Hillary Clinton, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       98 Comments 
   

ACLU: Love Is In The Air











The ACLU and many other LGBT allies are live-tweeting from outside the Supreme Court where a cavalcade of crackpots is fighting for camera time with repulsive banners, including on that reads "You are worthy of death." (That's infamous street preacher Ruben Isreal's group.) Other nutters are screaming abuse over portable loudspeakers while annoyed civil rights activists roll their eyes. If you have access to a television, CSPAN 1 is regularly cutting away from their panel discussions to the riotous scene outside the court. Over on CSPAN 3, hate groups are hold a press conference at the National Press Club, where at this writing Mat Staver is ranting in his familiar nutjob fashion. Oral arguments commence at 10AM and are scheduled to run until about 1PM. Shortly after the arguments conclude we'll get audio files and I'll posted those here immediately.[Bottom photo by JMG reader ArchiLaw]
Labels: marriage equality, SCOTUS, Washington DC


posted by Joe Jervis
       72 Comments 
   

FRC: This Will Never Be Over





"It is difficult not to think of Roe v. Wade. At the time of Roe, states were beginning to loosen limits on abortion. Not all of them would, to be sure, but the momentum was on the side of the abortion lobby. Then the Supreme Court took the issue out of the hands of the people, declared one side the winner, and established a policy of virtually unlimited abortion nationwide. And the New York Times declared the contentious issue settled. Of course there is hardly a less-settled issue in public life today, four decades later.
 "Deciding for a people disenfranchises them, embitters them and, ultimately, does not persuade. The citizens of a republic can understand political wins and losses, and when arrived at democratically even losses go down more easily. Losses do not go down easily when they are issued from powers on high. Today the Supreme Court will be urged once again to 'settle' a contentious issue by forcing same-sex marriage on all 50 states and nullifying the votes of over half of America. It should decline. The better way, the constitutional way, is to let the people of each state decide for themselves." - FRC staffer Cathy Ruse, writing for USA Today.
RELATED: Ruse is married to C-FAM leader and Breitbart columnist Austin Ruse, who last year was fired from AFA talk radio after declaring that liberal college professors "should all be taken out and shot." Austin Ruse has also denounced the United Nations for opposing the death penalty for homosexuality.
Labels: Austin Ruse, Cathy Ruse, crackpots, FRC, hate groups, LGBT rights, marriage equality, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       110 Comments 
   

What If We Lose?





The Washington Post ponders the worst case scenario:
In deep-red states such as Oklahoma, Utah and Kansas, officials probably would waste no time trying to put a stop to same-sex marriages. Groups may attempt to have existing marriages invalidated or may press state officials not to allow state benefits for gay couples who have wed. Arizona state Sen. Steve Smith, a Republican from Maricopa County, predicted an immediate push to reinstate a constitutional amendment, approved in a 2008 voter referendum, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. “I don’t know how much clearer the will of the people can be expressed than by a vote to that effect,” he said.
 In states such as Oregon and New Jersey, where the political climate has become more favorable to gay marriage in recent years, there probably would be a scramble to enact legislation to allow same-sex marriages. But the process could be more drawn out in places such as California, whose prohibition on same-sex marriage was part of the state constitution. If that ban was reinstated as a result of a Supreme Court decision, a voter referendum would be needed to get rid of it.
 Elsewhere, the battles could be more pitched. In Virginia and Pennsylvania, for instance, freshly minted Democratic governors may resist attempts to revert to old laws, potentially clashing with conservative state lawmakers. And Republican leaders in Florida and elsewhere could find themselves squeezed between their conservative bases and gay rights forces that would label them bigots.
 The biggest question: What would become of the thousands of couples who got married in the 22 states during the brief period same-sex marriage was allowed? James Esseks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed to several recent cases involving same-sex marriage that suggest courts generally think that “once you’re married, you’re married.” But some experts think it could take years of litigation, and perhaps another go before the Supreme Court, to clarify that.
Hit the link for more analysis.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       71 Comments 
   

NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliation For Anti-Gay Voting





Via Fargo's ABC affiliate:
A North Dakota lawmaker who sent an explicit photo of himself to another man says the exchange being made public is retaliation for a recent vote against expanding gay rights. Rep. Randy Boehning, a 52-year-old Republican legislator from Fargo, says a Capitol employee told him a fellow lawmaker vowed to out him as gay if he continued to vote against bills granting gays legal protections against discrimination. Boehning refused to identify at this point who he believes is behind the purported political payback for his vote against Senate Bill 2279, the third such bill defeated in the past six years by North Dakota legislators.
 The exchange came to light when Dustin Smith, a 21-year-old Bismarck man with no known connections to the Capitol, contacted The Forum earlier this month, saying he recognized Boehning from a gay dating smartphone app called Grindr. Chatting under the user name Top Man!, Boehning sent Smith sexually suggestive messages and, in the early morning hours of March 12, an unsolicited photo of his penis, according to exchanges reviewed by The Forum. "How can you discriminate against the person you're trying to pick up?" Smith said in a recent interview. When first questioned about the messages two weeks ago, Boehning declined to comment on whether he sent the explicit photo and messages. But on Saturday he confirmed he was Top Man! and said he doesn't think sending a graphic photo of himself to a stranger is a lapse in judgment, as Grindr is an adult site where users often exchange such images.
Boehning defends his anti-gay voting record, saying he is merely following the wishes of his constituents. He also says that he's now glad the have the "1000-lb gorilla" of the closet off his back. (Tipped by JMG reader Mark)
Labels: GOP, Grindr, homocons, North Dakota, outing


posted by Joe Jervis
       146 Comments 
   

Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread





Today is THE big day. Use this thread to share breaking news, thoughts, videos, photos, and tweets.   #LoveMustWin is the suggested hashtag on social media. Are you excited? Worried?
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       226 Comments 
   

NORTHERN IRELAND: Assembly Narrowly Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Bill





Via the Irish Times:
The Northern Assembly has again voted to reject legalising same sex marriage. The Democratic Unionist Party had used its numbers to block the Sinn Féin motion on Monday evening through a vetoing mechanism called a petition of concern. In the end however the petition was not required as the Sinn Féin motion was defeated by a simple majority of 49 votes to 47.
 All 37 Sinn Féin and SDLP members present voted for the motion while four unionists and six Assembly members designated as “other” also voted in favour. All DUP members and all but one of the Ulster Unionists present voted against the motion including First Minister and DUP leader Peter Robinson and Ulster Unionist Party leader Mike Nesbitt.
 The only UUP member to support the motion was South Antrim Westminster candidate Danny Kinahan. Independent unionist Claire Sugden from the East Derry constituency and two MLAs associated with the NI21 party, Basil McCrea and John McCallister voted in favour. This is the fourth time in two-and-a-half years that Sinn Féin motions on same sex marriage have been defeated. In the last vote in April last year two Alliance MLAs Judith Cochrane and Trevor Lunn voted against the motion. This time they abstained along with Alliance colleague Kieran McCarthy.
Sinn Fein is supporting marriage equality "north and south."
RELATED: The debate over the bill involved an anti-gay scandal.
The controversy surrounding Northern Ireland's DUP health minister, Jim Wells, featured heavily in the debate. The health minster issued a public apology on Friday, after he was recorded on camera making comments linking gay relationships and child abuse. Mr Wells then announced his resignation on Monday, after it was confirmed that police are also investigating an incident involving a lesbian couple during a door-to-door election canvas by Mr Wells in County Down. It is alleged that he called at the couple's house, and during a conversation was critical of their lifestyle. He is due to step down on 11 May to spend more time with his seriously ill wife, but Sinn Féin said his resignation should take immediate effect. Sinn Féin's Catriona Ruane expressed sympathy over his wife's illness but said he should have resigned immediately after linking child abuse to gay parents.

Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, Northern Ireland


posted by Joe Jervis
       9 Comments 
   

FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site





The Family Research Council has launched Free To Believe, a warehousing site for all of the sad, sad, clutch-the-Kleenex stories of the noble Christian martyrs and victims of evil homofascists. Among those victims are multimillionaires David and Jason Benham, multimillionaire Phil Robertson, a Utah cop who wouldn't do his job, an Atlanta fire chief who broke the rules at his job, several small business owners who broke long-standing state laws, and several others who claims were debunked after having been first publicized by noted truth-teller Todd Starnes. You'll recognize pretty much all the names, they are the same tiny group that has been trotted out over and over and over for the last few years.
Labels: FRC, hate groups, liars, religion


posted by Joe Jervis
       100 Comments 
  
Monday, April 27, 2015


Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots







Labels: Baltimore, civil unrest, Hillary Clinton, riots


posted by Joe Jervis
       49 Comments 
   

Protesters Chant "Shame!" At Midtown Hotel Owned By Cruz Meeting Hosts






















 Photos by Matt Rettenmund at Boy Culture.


Labels: boycotts, gay bars, Ian Reisner, marriage equality, Mati Weiderpass, nightlife, Out NYC, protests, Ted Cruz


posted by Joe Jervis
       145 Comments 
   

Foundation For Moral Law Files Recusal Demand Against Ginsburg And Kagan





Via press release:
The Foundation for Moral Law, a Montgomery-based nonprofit corporation dedicated to defending the Constitution as understood by its Framers, filed a motion Monday in the United States Supreme Court, urging the recusal of two Justices who have performed same-sex marriages. Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a Justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Because they have performed same-sex marriages, and because Justice Ginsburg has spoken publicly in favor of same-sex marriage, the Foundation contends that those Justices are predisposed to rule in favor of same-sex marriage and are unable or unwilling to consider this case impartially, and that their words and actions give the appearance of bias, if not bias itself. Foundation President Kayla Moore said, ” Common sense dictates that one who has performed same-sex marriages cannot objectively rule on their legality. If these Justices participate in this case, the Court’s decision will forever be questioned as being based on their personal feelings rather than on the Constitution itself. With far less evidence of bias Chief Justice Roy Moore voluntarily did not vote on the recent Alabama Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should follow his example.”
Far less evidence of bias! Oh, my sides.
RELATED: Kayla Moore took over as head of the Foundation For Moral Law when her husband Roy Moore was reelected to the Alabama Supreme Court after having been booted from the bench for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom. Roy Moore's triumphant return was bankrolled by a leader of an SPLC-certified racist hate group who recently "celebrated" the 150th anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
Labels: Alabama, crackpots, Elena Kagan, Foundation For Moral Law, hate groups, Kayla Moore, religion, Roy Moore, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       158 Comments 
   

BALTIMORE: Governor Declares State Of Emergency, Calls Out National Guard





Via ABC News:
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency today following a violent gathering in Baltimore, where people threw objects at police, set cars on fire and looted businesses. Hogan also activated the National Guard. The standoff began near the Mondawmin Mall in the northwest part of the city, the Baltimore Police Department said, as the group threw bricks, rocks and other objects at officers. Protesters were seen climbing on a police cruiser and damaging several others. Police tweeted that people were also looting businesses and setting cars on fire. One of the looted businesses was a CVS Pharmacy, but a spokesman for CVS said the store was closed earlier in the day out of an abundance of caution so no customers or employees were there at the time. Tonight's baseball game in Baltimore between the Orioles and the White Sox has been postponed in the wake of the violence, the team said.
In the past hour CNN cameras were rolling when rioters slashed water hoses as firefighters worked to extinguish blazing businesses.



Labels: Baltimore, civil unrest, Maryland, riots


posted by Joe Jervis
       335 Comments 
   


 
   

 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               


  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/














     


  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D263775633%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D%2D5332962704138964144%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E78364%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E7%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdZ6JWEKAAf7duuQPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABo5z4AcgB3YD1ktAp2gEULTUzMzI5NjI3MDQxMzg5NjQxNDTlAaRTMDzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAfAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=263775633?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=263775633;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=%2D5332962704138964144;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.78364,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.7;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdZ6JWEKAAf7duuQPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcABo5z4AcgB3YD1ktAp2gEULTUzMzI5NjI3MDQxMzg5NjQxNDTlAaRTMDzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBagCBrACCLoCBMC4QAfAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263775633?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263775633?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Here Is Today's SCOTUS Protester
Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex Couples D...
Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First
Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" Guy ...
Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must Sign Our Pledg...
Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win
Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS
NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided
NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Here Is Today's SCOTUS Protester





Today's Supreme Court hearing was momentarily disrupted by a man in the gallery who repeatedly screamed "homosexuality is an abomination" before being carted out by federal police. It turns out that the man is a well-known crackpot named Rives Miller Grogan, seen above in October 2011 when he ran on the field during a National League playoff game between the Cincinnati Reds and the San Francisco Giants.
 In 2012 Grogan was arrested by DC police after he climbed a tree during Obama's second inauguration to scream anti-Obama slogans. Grogan has disrupted many events around the nation and has been ejected from the US House and Senate galleries for screaming. In 2013 a DC district judge permanently banned Grogan from the city, spawning a freedom of speech debate.
“Banning him from the District because he’s sitting in a tree or speaking out, I think is absurd,” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a civil-liberties group that is taking up Grogan’s case. “He’s strange, but do you know how many strange people enter D.C. every day who probably shouldn’t be here?” Magistrate Judge Karen Howze signed the order Tuesday, telling Grogan to stay out of the city until a hearing Feb. 25. The order is more sweeping than what prosecutors had sought. The U.S. Attorney’s Office had asked that Grogan be banned from the Capitol grounds, House and Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. But Howze broadened the request as a condition of releasing Grogan from jail until his trial.
 Grogan, 47, who calls himself “Pastor Rick” and runs a ministry and boardinghouse in Los Angeles, admits he’s an irritant, racking up about 10 arrests and a half-dozen convictions in two years in House and Senate buildings alone. He said he patiently waits for the proceedings to be recessed before he stands and shouts, most recently in the Senate gallery when he screamed that legal abortions caused the massacre in Newtown, Conn. “I preach, and I preach loudly on Capitol Hill,” said Grogan, who said he’s never spent more than a few days in jail. He’s been thrown out of a presidential debate, a Major League Baseball game attended by Mitt Romney, and too many buildings to count.
Maybe now the Supreme Court will uphold that ban from DC.
Labels: crazy people, loony tunes, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       67 Comments 
   

Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex Couples Deserve Marriage Rights Now





"I am committed – as is this department – to ensuring equal dignity and equal treatment for all members of society, regardless of sexual orientation.  As we argued today before the Supreme Court, same-sex couples deserve that treatment now. " - Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Labels: DOJ, Loretta Lynch, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       39 Comments 
   

Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First





It's believed that this is a first for major league baseball:
"After consultation with Major League Baseball and city and local officials, tomorrow's game between the Orioles and Chicago White Sox will be closed to the public," the team said in a statement. "The Orioles will also play their three-game series against the Tampa Bay Rays, scheduled for May 1-3, at Tropicana Field in Florida, while serving as the home team." The announcement came one day after Orioles executive John Angelos, the son of team owner Peter Angelos, responded to criticism of the protestors with a lengthy statement that pointed towards "a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere…living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state."

Labels: Baltimore, baseball, civil unrest, riots


posted by Joe Jervis
       42 Comments 
   

Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" Guy About Yogurt Store Fracas



Via the St. Louis Fox affiliate:
“It’s a good thing you didn’t order hot fudge, huh? That could’ve been really bad,” host Jimmy Kimmel said. “Right, my skin would’ve been burnt,” Caldwell said. The cashier, Stephanie Diaz, was charged with third-degree assault. Diaz denies calling Caldwell a homosexual slur, adding that she is gay. Kimmel said his show contacted her to appear on the program, but her lawyers declined. “Will you be writing a negative Yelp review of the store?” Kimmel said. “Yes, I will,” Caldwell said, adding that he plans to sue the FroYo store. When asked how much he thinks he should get for his troubles, Caldwell plainly responded, “a couple million.” “That’s a lot of toppings,” Kimmel quipped.
(Tipped by JMG reader Scott)
Labels: Andrew Caldwell, ex-gay, still totally gay


posted by Joe Jervis
       78 Comments 
   

Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must Sign Our Pledge To Disobey SCOTUS



Huckabee and Santorum have already signed. Start at 3:30.

Labels: crackpots, crazy people, GOP, hate groups, Liberty Counsel, Mat Staver, Mike Huckabee, religion, Rick Santorum


posted by Joe Jervis
       112 Comments 
   

Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win







Anderson writes for the Heritage Foundation:
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
 Even Justice Stephen Breyer got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.”
 He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy. If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.
Earlier today Anderson boasted that it sounded like the justices have read his anti-gay marriage book.
Labels: crackpots, hate groups, Heritage Foundation, LGBT rights, marriage equality, religion, Ryan T. Anderson, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       198 Comments 
   

Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS







Labels: crackpots, hate groups, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       36 Comments 
   

NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided





The New York Times weighs in:
The justices appeared to clash over not only what is the right answer in the case but also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change. Justice Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for so many years. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.
 Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their religious teaching. Justice Stephen G. Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. And Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan said that allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.
 At the start of Tuesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Roberts said he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed, that definition will not be operable,” the Chief Justice said. “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”



Labels: Anthony Kennedy, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       120 Comments 
   

NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy





"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is. It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it. The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue. We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia – the union of one man and one woman. Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake – upending an institution that has served society well for millennia – and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage." - NOM chairman John Eastman, via press release.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, crackpots, hate groups, John Eastman, marriage equality, NOM, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       67 Comments 
   

Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys



Chris Geidner writes at Buzzfeed:
At Tuesday’s marriage arguments over same-sex couples’ marriage rights, the majority of the court appeared to be comfortable with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s understanding of human dignity as including gay people’s equal treatment under the law. While Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote in the case, did not make any unambiguous statement about the end result of the case, he harshly questioned the state of Michigan’s argument that it should be allowed to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.
 At one point, Kennedy commented to Michigan’s lawyer that its law banning same-sex couples from marrying “assumes” that those couples can’t have the same “more noble purpose” as opposite sex couples have for entering marriage. Joined often by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the lawyer defending marriage bans, John Bursch, faced repeated questions about what other limits states could constitutionally place on marriages and whether the states’ claimed interest amounted to anything more than, as Sotomayor asked, a “ceiling…that doesn’t have logic.”
Geidner notes that Chief Justice John Roberts did not appear to favor either side.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       147 Comments 
   

AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question






 The oral arguments for the second question considered today have been posted. Listen as the justices weigh whether states must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Labels: 14th Amendment, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       21 Comments 
   

Early Reports As Hearings Conclude

















Johnson reports for the Washington Blade.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Mary Bonauto, Michigan, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       119 Comments 
   

Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez









Labels: Antonin Scalia, crackpots, gay families, gay parenting, homocons, marriage equality, Robert Oscar Lopez, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       63 Comments 
   

AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments






 The 90-minute oral arguments for the first question considered today have been posted. Listen as the justices weigh whether the 14th Amendment guarantees marriage rights to all American citizens.
Labels: Jim Obergefell, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       28 Comments 
   

Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS







Labels: Gay Men's Chorus, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       4 Comments 
   

Uh Oh







Labels: Anthony Kennedy, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       156 Comments 
   

Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing





Via the Guardian:
A protester has been removed from the supreme court after a “big outburst”, reports SCOTUSblog’s Eric Citron and the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly. From Citron: “A protestor has just been removed from the Courtroom – it came immediately after the petitioner’s argument. Hard to hear what he’s saying, and he’s been removed.” Citron’s colleague Tejinder Singh says he “could hear the man continuing to shout as the guards escorted him from the courtroom and into the building. The Supreme Court building is not the best, acoustically, so it was hard to make out what he was saying, but it sounded like an anti-same-sex marriage rant.”


More from the Wall Street Journal: "As the first segment of the argument came to a close, an older man with white hair and beard stood up in the courtroom and screamed, 'Homosexuality is an abomination!' and something about how if the court allows it, that would be terrible. He continued screaming as officers removed him from the courtroom. Even through closed doors, he could be heard inside the courtroom screaming the same over and over as he was taken away."
Labels: marriage equality, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       34 Comments 
   

Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally Send Christians To Jail





Labels: crazy people, hate groups, Janet Porter, loony tunes


posted by Joe Jervis
       60 Comments 
   

Outside The Supreme Court

















Photos by Father Tony.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       68 Comments 
   

PBS Examines Kentucky's Case



"On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear cases from four states that currently have gay marriage bans: Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky. The NewsHour talked to two different Kentucky families whose personal stories launched the court case."

Labels: Kentucky, marriage equality, PBS, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       66 Comments 
   

SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging





SCOTUSblog will be live-blogging shortly.
Labels: marriage equality, SCOTUS, SCOTUSblog


posted by Joe Jervis
       199 Comments 
   

Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS





Christine "Monster Energy Drink is by Satan" Weick has taken time off from disrupting Muslim events to protest outside the Supreme Court, where she just told C-SPAN that "God will remove his protecting hand from America" if they rule for same-sex marriage.
Labels: Christine Weick, crackpots, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       91 Comments 
   

IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality




(Tipped by JMG reader Erik)
Labels: Ben And Jerry's, Ireland, marriage equality


posted by Joe Jervis
       6 Comments 
   

Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow





Hillary Clinton's social media accounts just swapped out the campaign's logo for the above rainbow version.
Labels: 2016 elections, Hillary Clinton, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       98 Comments 
   

ACLU: Love Is In The Air











The ACLU and many other LGBT allies are live-tweeting from outside the Supreme Court where a cavalcade of crackpots is fighting for camera time with repulsive banners, including on that reads "You are worthy of death." (That's infamous street preacher Ruben Isreal's group.) Other nutters are screaming abuse over portable loudspeakers while annoyed civil rights activists roll their eyes. If you have access to a television, CSPAN 1 is regularly cutting away from their panel discussions to the riotous scene outside the court. Over on CSPAN 3, hate groups are hold a press conference at the National Press Club, where at this writing Mat Staver is ranting in his familiar nutjob fashion. Oral arguments commence at 10AM and are scheduled to run until about 1PM. Shortly after the arguments conclude we'll get audio files and I'll posted those here immediately.[Bottom photo by JMG reader ArchiLaw]
Labels: marriage equality, SCOTUS, Washington DC


posted by Joe Jervis
       72 Comments 
   

FRC: This Will Never Be Over





"It is difficult not to think of Roe v. Wade. At the time of Roe, states were beginning to loosen limits on abortion. Not all of them would, to be sure, but the momentum was on the side of the abortion lobby. Then the Supreme Court took the issue out of the hands of the people, declared one side the winner, and established a policy of virtually unlimited abortion nationwide. And the New York Times declared the contentious issue settled. Of course there is hardly a less-settled issue in public life today, four decades later.
 "Deciding for a people disenfranchises them, embitters them and, ultimately, does not persuade. The citizens of a republic can understand political wins and losses, and when arrived at democratically even losses go down more easily. Losses do not go down easily when they are issued from powers on high. Today the Supreme Court will be urged once again to 'settle' a contentious issue by forcing same-sex marriage on all 50 states and nullifying the votes of over half of America. It should decline. The better way, the constitutional way, is to let the people of each state decide for themselves." - FRC staffer Cathy Ruse, writing for USA Today.
RELATED: Ruse is married to C-FAM leader and Breitbart columnist Austin Ruse, who last year was fired from AFA talk radio after declaring that liberal college professors "should all be taken out and shot." Austin Ruse has also denounced the United Nations for opposing the death penalty for homosexuality.
Labels: Austin Ruse, Cathy Ruse, crackpots, FRC, hate groups, LGBT rights, marriage equality, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       110 Comments 
   

What If We Lose?





The Washington Post ponders the worst case scenario:
In deep-red states such as Oklahoma, Utah and Kansas, officials probably would waste no time trying to put a stop to same-sex marriages. Groups may attempt to have existing marriages invalidated or may press state officials not to allow state benefits for gay couples who have wed. Arizona state Sen. Steve Smith, a Republican from Maricopa County, predicted an immediate push to reinstate a constitutional amendment, approved in a 2008 voter referendum, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. “I don’t know how much clearer the will of the people can be expressed than by a vote to that effect,” he said.
 In states such as Oregon and New Jersey, where the political climate has become more favorable to gay marriage in recent years, there probably would be a scramble to enact legislation to allow same-sex marriages. But the process could be more drawn out in places such as California, whose prohibition on same-sex marriage was part of the state constitution. If that ban was reinstated as a result of a Supreme Court decision, a voter referendum would be needed to get rid of it.
 Elsewhere, the battles could be more pitched. In Virginia and Pennsylvania, for instance, freshly minted Democratic governors may resist attempts to revert to old laws, potentially clashing with conservative state lawmakers. And Republican leaders in Florida and elsewhere could find themselves squeezed between their conservative bases and gay rights forces that would label them bigots.
 The biggest question: What would become of the thousands of couples who got married in the 22 states during the brief period same-sex marriage was allowed? James Esseks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed to several recent cases involving same-sex marriage that suggest courts generally think that “once you’re married, you’re married.” But some experts think it could take years of litigation, and perhaps another go before the Supreme Court, to clarify that.
Hit the link for more analysis.
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       71 Comments 
   

NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliation For Anti-Gay Voting





Via Fargo's ABC affiliate:
A North Dakota lawmaker who sent an explicit photo of himself to another man says the exchange being made public is retaliation for a recent vote against expanding gay rights. Rep. Randy Boehning, a 52-year-old Republican legislator from Fargo, says a Capitol employee told him a fellow lawmaker vowed to out him as gay if he continued to vote against bills granting gays legal protections against discrimination. Boehning refused to identify at this point who he believes is behind the purported political payback for his vote against Senate Bill 2279, the third such bill defeated in the past six years by North Dakota legislators.
 The exchange came to light when Dustin Smith, a 21-year-old Bismarck man with no known connections to the Capitol, contacted The Forum earlier this month, saying he recognized Boehning from a gay dating smartphone app called Grindr. Chatting under the user name Top Man!, Boehning sent Smith sexually suggestive messages and, in the early morning hours of March 12, an unsolicited photo of his penis, according to exchanges reviewed by The Forum. "How can you discriminate against the person you're trying to pick up?" Smith said in a recent interview. When first questioned about the messages two weeks ago, Boehning declined to comment on whether he sent the explicit photo and messages. But on Saturday he confirmed he was Top Man! and said he doesn't think sending a graphic photo of himself to a stranger is a lapse in judgment, as Grindr is an adult site where users often exchange such images.
Boehning defends his anti-gay voting record, saying he is merely following the wishes of his constituents. He also says that he's now glad the have the "1000-lb gorilla" of the closet off his back. (Tipped by JMG reader Mark)
Labels: GOP, Grindr, homocons, North Dakota, outing


posted by Joe Jervis
       146 Comments 
   

Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread





Today is THE big day. Use this thread to share breaking news, thoughts, videos, photos, and tweets.   #LoveMustWin is the suggested hashtag on social media. Are you excited? Worried?
Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       226 Comments 
   

NORTHERN IRELAND: Assembly Narrowly Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Bill





Via the Irish Times:
The Northern Assembly has again voted to reject legalising same sex marriage. The Democratic Unionist Party had used its numbers to block the Sinn Féin motion on Monday evening through a vetoing mechanism called a petition of concern. In the end however the petition was not required as the Sinn Féin motion was defeated by a simple majority of 49 votes to 47.
 All 37 Sinn Féin and SDLP members present voted for the motion while four unionists and six Assembly members designated as “other” also voted in favour. All DUP members and all but one of the Ulster Unionists present voted against the motion including First Minister and DUP leader Peter Robinson and Ulster Unionist Party leader Mike Nesbitt.
 The only UUP member to support the motion was South Antrim Westminster candidate Danny Kinahan. Independent unionist Claire Sugden from the East Derry constituency and two MLAs associated with the NI21 party, Basil McCrea and John McCallister voted in favour. This is the fourth time in two-and-a-half years that Sinn Féin motions on same sex marriage have been defeated. In the last vote in April last year two Alliance MLAs Judith Cochrane and Trevor Lunn voted against the motion. This time they abstained along with Alliance colleague Kieran McCarthy.
Sinn Fein is supporting marriage equality "north and south."
RELATED: The debate over the bill involved an anti-gay scandal.
The controversy surrounding Northern Ireland's DUP health minister, Jim Wells, featured heavily in the debate. The health minster issued a public apology on Friday, after he was recorded on camera making comments linking gay relationships and child abuse. Mr Wells then announced his resignation on Monday, after it was confirmed that police are also investigating an incident involving a lesbian couple during a door-to-door election canvas by Mr Wells in County Down. It is alleged that he called at the couple's house, and during a conversation was critical of their lifestyle. He is due to step down on 11 May to spend more time with his seriously ill wife, but Sinn Féin said his resignation should take immediate effect. Sinn Féin's Catriona Ruane expressed sympathy over his wife's illness but said he should have resigned immediately after linking child abuse to gay parents.

Labels: LGBT rights, marriage equality, Northern Ireland


posted by Joe Jervis
       9 Comments 
   

FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site





The Family Research Council has launched Free To Believe, a warehousing site for all of the sad, sad, clutch-the-Kleenex stories of the noble Christian martyrs and victims of evil homofascists. Among those victims are multimillionaires David and Jason Benham, multimillionaire Phil Robertson, a Utah cop who wouldn't do his job, an Atlanta fire chief who broke the rules at his job, several small business owners who broke long-standing state laws, and several others who claims were debunked after having been first publicized by noted truth-teller Todd Starnes. You'll recognize pretty much all the names, they are the same tiny group that has been trotted out over and over and over for the last few years.
Labels: FRC, hate groups, liars, religion


posted by Joe Jervis
       100 Comments 
  
Monday, April 27, 2015


Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots







Labels: Baltimore, civil unrest, Hillary Clinton, riots


posted by Joe Jervis
       49 Comments 
   

Protesters Chant "Shame!" At Midtown Hotel Owned By Cruz Meeting Hosts






















 Photos by Matt Rettenmund at Boy Culture.


Labels: boycotts, gay bars, Ian Reisner, marriage equality, Mati Weiderpass, nightlife, Out NYC, protests, Ted Cruz


posted by Joe Jervis
       145 Comments 
   

Foundation For Moral Law Files Recusal Demand Against Ginsburg And Kagan





Via press release:
The Foundation for Moral Law, a Montgomery-based nonprofit corporation dedicated to defending the Constitution as understood by its Framers, filed a motion Monday in the United States Supreme Court, urging the recusal of two Justices who have performed same-sex marriages. Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a Justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Because they have performed same-sex marriages, and because Justice Ginsburg has spoken publicly in favor of same-sex marriage, the Foundation contends that those Justices are predisposed to rule in favor of same-sex marriage and are unable or unwilling to consider this case impartially, and that their words and actions give the appearance of bias, if not bias itself. Foundation President Kayla Moore said, ” Common sense dictates that one who has performed same-sex marriages cannot objectively rule on their legality. If these Justices participate in this case, the Court’s decision will forever be questioned as being based on their personal feelings rather than on the Constitution itself. With far less evidence of bias Chief Justice Roy Moore voluntarily did not vote on the recent Alabama Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should follow his example.”
Far less evidence of bias! Oh, my sides.
RELATED: Kayla Moore took over as head of the Foundation For Moral Law when her husband Roy Moore was reelected to the Alabama Supreme Court after having been booted from the bench for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom. Roy Moore's triumphant return was bankrolled by a leader of an SPLC-certified racist hate group who recently "celebrated" the 150th anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
Labels: Alabama, crackpots, Elena Kagan, Foundation For Moral Law, hate groups, Kayla Moore, religion, Roy Moore, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       158 Comments 
   

BALTIMORE: Governor Declares State Of Emergency, Calls Out National Guard





Via ABC News:
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency today following a violent gathering in Baltimore, where people threw objects at police, set cars on fire and looted businesses. Hogan also activated the National Guard. The standoff began near the Mondawmin Mall in the northwest part of the city, the Baltimore Police Department said, as the group threw bricks, rocks and other objects at officers. Protesters were seen climbing on a police cruiser and damaging several others. Police tweeted that people were also looting businesses and setting cars on fire. One of the looted businesses was a CVS Pharmacy, but a spokesman for CVS said the store was closed earlier in the day out of an abundance of caution so no customers or employees were there at the time. Tonight's baseball game in Baltimore between the Orioles and the White Sox has been postponed in the wake of the violence, the team said.
In the past hour CNN cameras were rolling when rioters slashed water hoses as firefighters worked to extinguish blazing businesses.



Labels: Baltimore, civil unrest, Maryland, riots


posted by Joe Jervis
       335 Comments 
   


 
   

 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               


  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/