Get Gay Married, Brehs

[Phoenix Dark]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

[I'm a Puppy!]

My gay friends can get married 

The incoming conservative meltdowns

What a day. What a lovely day 

[Yulwei]

  this day is going to go in the history books and I wish I had a cool gif to post

[tiesto]

And coincidentally, I was listening to this when I saw the news:

[benjipwns]

I don't listen to no unelected judges, I'll wait for President Huckabee to protect me and moral values.

[ToxicAdam]

This explains why Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock. Marriage is now a corrupted institution.

[Tasty]

 

[Tasty]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Don't forget who started all this: Massachusetts

[close]

[I'm a Puppy!]

This explains why Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock. Marriage is now a corrupted institution.

Oh that's good. I'm stealing this.

[Madrun Badrun]

Won't somebody please think of the Christians? 

[Phoenix Dark]

https://twitter.com/donlemon/status/614434780223045632

nevermind, I reverse my support

[Brehvolution]

[Tasty]

The South catching three* major L's in a week

*flag bans, obummercare, homosex "marriage"

[Phoenix Dark]

[Rufus]

(Image removed from quote.)

Wow.

[benjipwns]

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.

...

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “in any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

bold is mine

[benjipwns]

tl;dr version of Scalia and co:

[I'm a Puppy!]

(Image removed from quote.)

Not gonna lie. That almost brought a tear to my eye. Today  I get to celebrate with my kids in a way that they will remember the day when marriage equality came to America.

[nachobro]

eh sounds gay

[Nibel]

brehs this means when one day I visit the US I'm gonna marry one of you fuckers despite being heterosexual so I can get that greeny greeny and stay in the US and get a feeling for freedom

[Van Cruncheon]

holy shit, that scalia response is like a gafworthy "greatest hits" collection of basic logical fallacies

[Phoenix Dark]

The South catching three* major L's in a week

*flag bans, obummercare, homosex "marriage"

Now we just need to find out Obama is the father of Bristol's child.

[Mr Gilhaney]

and here I thought our great country of the free, was built on Christian values.

[Tasty]

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.

...

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “in any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

bold is mine

[benjipwns]

(Image removed from quote.)

and here I thought our great country of the free, was built on Christian values.

smh now they're even trying to get rid of the "white" part in White House

[Mr Gilhaney]

Well I do like Frankie Goes To Hollywood.

[Take My Breh Away]

Thought I had my fill of conservative tears when Ireland voted it in. Turns out the bar is now doing double shots on the house

[Tasty]

I might come out to my coworkers today. Need to think about it. It's hard for me to really celebrate this news while lying about who I am.

[brob]

so, how long until I get to bottom for a man-sized grasshopper?

[Phoenix Dark]

Scalia didn't disappoint.

[benjipwns]

[benjipwns]

Rick Santorum ‏@RickSantorum
Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage

The Court is 1 of 3 coequal branches of government & they have an imperfect record. Stakes are too high to cede marriage to unelected judges

[brob]

I might come out to my coworkers today. Need to think about it. It's hard for me to really celebrate this news while lying about who I am.

Does your state have employment protections? 

[Mandark]

I might come out to my coworkers today. Need to think about it. It's hard for me to really celebrate this news while lying about who I am.

By this point, there's a good chance they've already picked up on the clues and know you're a Nintendo fan.

[Tasty]

I might come out to my coworkers today. Need to think about it. It's hard for me to really celebrate this news while lying about who I am.

By this point, there's a good chance they've already picked up on the clues and know you're a Nintendo fan.

[Kara]

If there is a soul, I hope yours is grinning like an idiot, Gaborn.

[thisismyusername]

(Image removed from quote.)


so, how long until I get to bottom for a man-sized grasshopper?

Broseidon coming to America, confirmed?

[Mandark]

(Image removed from quote.)


so, how long until I get to bottom for a man-sized grasshopper?

The bottom left panel is like concept art for a graphic novel adaptation of Perdido Street Station.

[Himu]

Wow.

Pride is going to be amazing this weekend.

[benjipwns]

Just one hit of Breitbart, I can stop after one hit, come on, you know I'm good...

Commander McBragg  SeaSaltJones • 10 minutes ago
The support for moral decay is always a great day for those who love evil.

The Last Trump  SeaSaltJones • 4 minutes ago
And America seals her fate. Let the social unrest ensue.
This country has been hijacked. Revolution is truly the only recourse left

Anonymous isn't Anonymous  Commander McBragg • 12 minutes ago
You'll be forced into a prison. This is the nation we now live in. If you don't support gays, you're an enemy of the state.

fundamentals  Uncle_Pinko • 7 minutes ago
Perverts have perverted minds. Good luck.

Andrew  Uncle_Pinko • a few seconds ago
The impact is what it brings homosexuality more into the mainstream which has a negative affect on moral society in general. The foundation of our society was built upon moral law reflected relegious doctrine. Now that barrier has been lifted all other things considered "immoral" now and illegal could be overturned. SCOTUS just opened pandoras box.

Smug Frog • 39 minutes ago
Dear Putin,

Please invade the USA and save us from the crackheads in the federal government.

Breitbomber  Smug Frog • 30 minutes ago
Let the civil disobedience begin. Roberts said this had nothing to do with the constitution. He's right. But our refusal to go along will be a first amendment exercise. You talk about an issue that can unite blacks, hispanics and whites? 2016 baby.
Latinos don't like the maricons. Nor do the blacks.

sickofit5 • a minute ago
You have to understand that the ultimate goal of any leftist, marxist government is to tear down the traditional family and more importantly to minimize the importance of religion. As we speak gays are heading to their church and synagogues to demand marriage in the church. The first denials will result in lawsuits. This is not over. Especially, with this rabid crowd.

oxanne7 • 17 minutes ago
As long as this is not shoved in my face any longer ,it is what it is. If MY rights end where theirs begins, OK, but remember gays, YOUR rights end where MINE begin. I don't mind having you in the Pro Life Movement (PLAGAL) having you as neighbors etc, just keep the sexual stuff in your house and we will get along just fine. And before you think me a bigoted prude, I also prefer that straights keep the sexual stuff in THEIR houses.

Dumb Okie  Roxanne7 • 5 minutes ago
You are mistaken, the gay agenda has no intention of honoring any boundaries regarding the rights of others. They had equal rights, but they are intent on shredding yours. This ruling will enable the gay agenda to pursue litigation against any person or group who's standards do not comport with theirs. They have already been doing so in gay marriage states, and today I suspect they will be filing law suits across the country seeking damages against those who's conscience will not allow them to honor ungodly behavior.

Golfimbul77  Roxanne7 • 14 minutes ago
No it doesn't end here now their fellow travelers in the kiddy fiddling lobby will be out and demanding their rights and you had better not complain or you will be a bigot.

the funny thing while reading this thread was the autoplay video of Stephen A. Smith bashing the Knicks draft...wtf?

[Mr. Nobody]

Suspect niccas all across the country are crying tears of rage right now 

[Mandark]

benji, I almost chided you upthread for reposting user comments, but then that turned out to be Scalia's dissent.

[benjipwns]

http://www.redstate.com/2015/06/26/time-civil-disobedience/

[demi]

Finally, I can close this website down knowing my work is done

[Tasty]

Latinos don't like the maricons. Nor do the blacks.

That's not my experience

[recursivelyenumerable]

Dammit, I haven't even gotten regular married yet. It's so hard to keep up with technology sometimes.

[Himu]

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/can-transgender-people-get-married-texas

[Tasty]

And before you think me a bigoted prude, I also prefer that straights keep the sexual stuff in THEIR houses.

Prude.

[CatsCatsCats]

Niceeeee

I'm a little worried what the crazies will do in response, they don't lose well. 

[I'm a Puppy!]

Yeah, this is the biggest sign to the white conservative class that their day in the sun is over. They already act like a petulant child when something doesn't go their way and try to bring it back under their control. But they can't ignore this, nor can they pretend they can "take it back" under their control. I worry about what they're going to do.

[benjipwns]

Sunday is the big pride parade here. I will be in my prayer closet on my knees. I can't believe how sad I am but Jesus said it would be like this. COME LORD JESUS!

[Phoenix Dark]

On lunch break, celebrating something good happening.

[benjipwns]

[TakingBackSunday]

(Image removed from quote.)

Never mind, SCOTUS got it wrong

[Tasty]

This guys seems like he's full of rainbows.













In other news, the fight's not over yet.

[Tasty]

https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/614406294632443904

The comments on this one.

[Himu]

Remember the guy from yesterday? He's the guy in blue.

[Mandark]

Andrex, was just reading his mentions.  "GAY MARRIAGE CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS"

[Tasty]

https://twitter.com/oliveiranth/status/614457234009952256

[Phoenix Dark]