Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA

The U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court
As many of us predicted, Justice Anthony Kennedy supplied the fifth vote today to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  I just returned from offering legal analysis in front of the Supreme Court (and roasting in the DC summer weather with CNN).  I will be discussing the case tonight with BBC.  The surprise was not in the outcome or the split but the scope of the decision.  Kennedy could have rendered the same decision on a narrower basis but chose to render a more expansive endorsement of the constitutional protections for gay couples.  These are marriages, plain and simple, and cannot be simply discharged by Congress. Kennedy wrote: “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

As I discussed on CNN, I was most struck by the more small minority of justices on the Court that view such laws as justified on morality grounds. That view is now argued almost exclusively by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

Kennedy’s decision is a sweeping victory for the equal protection of couples regardless of gender. He writes:

By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMAforces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of statesanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriagesare unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the Statehas sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

Scalia was equally passionate. Indeed, when Jake Tapper noted on the air with me that he hasn’t seen a dissenting opinion with this type of heated language, I almost added “since the last Scalia dissent.” Scalia was at his signature best of venting his anger:

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congressand the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role.

The Proposition 8 decision was a win by default for the couples on standing grounds. However, it effectively kills everything on the docket after the district court order. That leaves the state open again for gay marriages.

Here is the decision in Windsor: 12-307_g2bh

Here is the decision in Hollingsworth: 12-144_8ok0

142 thoughts on “Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA

  1. Tonight a few friends will join me in raising a glass to Attorney Mary Bonauto, the mastermind of GLAD’s legal strategy.

  2. This is really a good/bad court.

    DOMA on one hand, the Salinas decision on the other.

    On balance, SCOTUS is currently a net liability.

  3. One interesting economic by product of the DOMA decision will be the transfer of wealth from those states that ban gay marriage to those that have legalized it. For instance, if it does not adopt same sex marriage, my home state of Illinois will now be denying to its citizens tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal economic benefits that could be flowing into our economy. The 13 states that recognize gay marriage will be getting a huge financial subsidy from all those who don’t. Illinois with its overwhelming economic problems can’t leave those millions on the table.

  4. Blouise,

    Please hoist one for me.😀


    Yep. And the liabilities stand to do staggering damage to our democracy.

  5. “Tonight a few friends will join me in raising a glass to Attorney Mary Bonauto, the mastermind of GLAD’s legal strategy.” -Blouise

    Kudos to Bonauto.

    Mary Bonauto, Gay Marriage Hero

    On this historic day, the legal architect of the DOMA repeal should not be forgotten.

    By Justin Peters|Posted Wednesday, June 26, 2013, at 1:10 PM

    Portland lawyer Mary Bonauto credited as ‘mastermind’ behind landmark gay rights court cases

    By Noah Hurowitz, Special to the BDN

    Posted March 30, 2013, at 2:42 p.m.

  6. Blouise,

    I’m also glad that the decision prevailed on equal protection grounds (as many here predicted). It shows that while the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under fire, at least the 14th still has some teeth.

  7. “It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role.”


    Wow, Mr. Justice Scalia, we haven’t seen that idea before! We lawyers all know that Chief Justice John Marshall was just joshing when he said in Marbury v. Madison:

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
    So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
    Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].
    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.

    I really think a lawyer at the “apex” of the judiciary and who taught about 60 miles from Mr. Marshall’s colonial home would know this. But, hey, they don’t publish it very often in the National Review.

  8. mespo,

    Strange words from Scalia given yesterday’s decision and the one back in 2001 wherein the Court actually installed a President but then I’m just a lowly retired musician, what do I know of judicial reasoning.

  9. Blouise,

    Scalia’s jurisprudence is riddled with such contradictions. Ultimately that’s what makes him such a poor jurist. He’ll deploy outcome determinism when it suits his personal wont or political agenda.

  10. Chase Mitchell on twitter: “Millions of gays and lesbians suddenly getting calls from their mothers to remind them how old they’re getting.”

  11. Blouise,

    Yes, but I’d already forgotten about it…, so thanks for the reminder. (-: The following tweets bear repeating. (Hoping this will post.)

    Michael C Moynihan ✔ @mcmoynihan

    @ggreenwald @BenjySarlin Now if only SCOTUS would rule Peter King unconstitutional, you could return to the US. Baby steps, I guess…

    Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

    @mcmoynihan @BenjySarlin It is ironic that I waited 8 years for this decision, and now that it happened, I have that other small matter.
    10:43 AM – 26 Jun 2013

  12. While I am pleased with the decision…. Questioning in the back of my mind are the two other decisions issued this week….. The VRA and the AA case….. How do they square? Here they say one thing…. And the two others . What….

  13. “…empowered to decide all constitutional questions…” Does Scalia know that he is a Supreme Court Justice? Hasn’t this been the settled role for the Supreme Court for over 200 years? If his jaw dropped over this perhaps it would drop even further if he were to be impeached because he doesn’t even know what his job is anymore.

  14. Blouise,

    It just makes no sense in my mind…. The only thing that they have in common is that they pushed each back to the states to decide….. But for different reasons…

  15. mespo727272,

    Maybe I am confused but isn’t J. Scalia speaking to the question of standing?

    BY my count, 4 Js were “consistent” with regard to Prop 8 and DOMA: CJ Roberts and J Scalia (no standing in both) and Js Kennedy and Sotomayor (standing in both). I don’t expect to take the time to independently determine the bases for the other Js’ “changed” positions, but I hope to see some informed commentary in the next few days. (Volokh conspiracy blog usually has a good legal discussion of these issues.)

  16. nick, But the catholic Kennedy wrote the majority opinion….too bad he was not more catholic on the voting rights decision.

  17. Once again, the US Supreme Court passes the buck. So many questions (where are the lawyers to explain this uncomprehensible decision? What time will Professor Turley be on TV to watch them discuss this?):

    The Courts still refused to address what constitute a marriage on a national scale. Hence, the states have the power to do so, and the federal government doesn’t? Or Congress does have the power to define marriage, but DOMA was discriminatory, since it went after a certain group of people?

    If a gay couple is married in CA, and their job moves to IL (a non-gay marriage state), then their marriage is null and void?

    Very cowardly of the Courts to strike down voters’ ballot initiative based on ‘legal standing or right’, and to agree with the lower courts by stating that the CA voters’ initiative is discriminatory. At the same time, ‘the justices did not address the broader legal argument that gay people have a fundamental right to marriage.’

    Why not have a clean sweep by stating that gay marriage is legal or illgal in the US, and be done with it?

    There will be more lawsuits on this issue to come……….

  18. Linda Hirshman thinks SCOTUS contradicted itself on the issue of standing:

    Maybe Hollingsworth was an honest commitment to the niceties of federal standing. But denying the Prop 8 advocates standing while extending it to the Congressional Republicans in Windsor is a little awkward. The policy argument the Court articulated to grant standing in Windsor—that the Court did not want the president to usurp their role of deciding constitutional cases by refusing to defend a law and destroying standing—applies with equal force to the California government in Hollingsworth. The Court’s role in deciding the constitutionality of state laws is as great, and almost as old, as its role in federal cases. Yet the Court just turned over to the governor of California the ability to destroy its jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of Prop 8.

    The incoherence of the two standing opinions, taken together, makes it more likely Hollingsworth was simply a decision to duck for a little while longer: There are a bunch of other direct challenges in the pipeline that don’t involve a standing problem. But the language of Windsor foretells that when the court does poke its heads over the trench it will be to make the final charge toward victory.

  19. nick,

    Scalia’s Catholicism is irrelevant to his inconsistent jurisprudence as is his being fat and balding. However, I don’t think even his most strident critics here – and there are a lot of them here and elsewhere – mistake him for stupid. Biased, a corporatist and possibly evil, sure, but not stupid.

  20. RWL: If a gay couple is married in CA, and their job moves to IL (a non-gay marriage state), then their marriage is null and void?

    I am not a lawyer but I don’t think that can be the case; wasn’t DOMA the law that exempted gay marriage in one state from being recognized in another? Currently all heterosexual marriages in one state are recognized by other states, I don’t have time to look, but I thought DOMA was the law that carved out an exception for homosexual marriages. If DOMA has been struck down, especially on these grounds, then that goes with it. If it wasn’t DOMA, then I think this same logic should strike down that exception.

  21. Blouise:

    “Strange words from Scalia given yesterday’s decision and the one back in 2001 wherein the Court actually installed a President but then I’m just a lowly retired musician, what do I know of judicial reasoning.”


    The Supreme Court keeps two sets of books!! Heaven forbid it.

  22. Tony,

    That’s in part what the future lawsuits are going to be about: Full Faith & Credit. They should all be winners too considering this decision’s basis in the 14th. Just like miscegenation laws fell one by one after Loving v. Virgina.

  23. Gene, “Stupid” is often the default criticism used by people. I’m heartened [and not ass kissing] to read you don’t consider Nino stupid. To me, he’s obviously pretty damn smart. What about “racist.” I don’t believe he is, but some here do. I don’t remember you calling him racist, but I don’t remember everything. Although my acupuncturist and fellow coconut oil enthusiast, Tony C have me eating that brain food and my Jeopardy skills are showing signs of improvement. Too many holes in my game. I’m very weak on royalty, mythology and some science.

  24. ” With the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act’s benefits ban in Section 3, for legally married gays and lesbians, the Court immediately — even if inadvertently — gave rise to a situation in which couples living in states that will not allow them to marry because they are homosexuals will still be able to qualify for federal benefits, many of which are handed out or managed by state governments.

    But the ruling did not do anything explicitly about another section of DOMA — Section 2, which gives the states the right to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. That thus raised the prospect that a same-sex couple married in one of the states now allowing such unions could face obstacles to their marital rights when they moved into states that still do not recognize their unions. This might be a particular problem for already-married gay couples serving in the military, who often have to move from state to state.” Lyle Denniston, SCOTUS blog

  25. Tony C.,

    “I am not a lawyer but I don’t think that can be the case; wasn’t DOMA the law that exempted gay marriage in one state from being recognized in another? Currently all heterosexual marriages in one state are recognized by other states….”

    No. The cowardly courts stated that DOMA is discriminatory; DOMA did not allow same-sex couples to receive federal benefits. IL can still refuse to recognize a CA same-sex couple’s marriage.

    Also, what Gene said……there will be more legal battles to come, but as for now, the states, (not the courts, voters’ ballot initiatives, and so far, Congress) can define marriage…this ruling is BS.


    Gay marriage opponents see hope in Supreme Court rulings

    MINNEAPOLIS — Opponents of gay marriage in Minnesota are claiming a qualified victory in two long-awaited Supreme Court rulings.

    The group Minnesota for Marriage fought unsuccessfully against this spring’s movement to make gay marriage legal in Minnesota. On Wednesday, the group said the court’s rulings demonstrate that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    The high court struck down part of federal law that denies federal benefits to married gay couples. It also cleared the way for California to resume same-sex marriages.

    Minnesota for Marriage chairman John Helmberger called both rulings bad but says they didn’t find any constitutional right to redefine marriage. Helmberger says it’s important for gay marriage opponents to work “harder than ever” on their cause.

  27. Gene,

    I don’t think Scalia is stupid. I do believe he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and does his best to show his contempt for other people’s opinions.

  28. nick,

    Biased, a corporatist, possibly evil and a producer of often conflicted inconsistent jurisprudence is sufficiently damning for Scalia. But racist? Not particularly. Homophobic is a fair claim based not just on his dissent in the instant case, but past opinions as well. But he’s not stupid. Stupid is as stupid does, however, and there is only one Justice currently serving with a sub-par intellect and that’s Thomas. He should be perhaps on a municipal bench somewhere, but he’s way out of his depth at SCOTUS level logic and legal reasoning. There’s a reason he never writes any of the tough majority decisions and when he does write for the majority, it’s on legal slow pitch softball issues like the patentability of naturally occurring genetic sequences. It’s not exactly a secret in the profession. In fact, in the history since the ABA began providing evaluations of SCOTUS nominees, he’s the only one ever to get simply a “Qualified” ranking instead of a “Highly Qualified” ranking and get the job. Even Bork, whom I loathed for many reasons and was thankful we as a nation dodged that bullet, was ten times more qualified for the job than Thomas. Many lawyers I know, and more than a few judges, don’t think Thomas should have gotten past the Senate in the first place.

  29. Elaine,

    In thinking about it, I fairly certain I’ve never heard anyone in this forum claim Scalia was stupid. Bob, who has called Scalia Satan among many other things, has never even called him stupid.

  30. nick, I don’t know how anyone could consider Scalia stupid. He was summa from Georgetown and magna from Harvard law. As a son of Italian immigrants he had no legacies or other advantages to trade on.

  31. This is good news. It’s probably just a coincidence but my nephew got married today by proxy in Brazil. They are both going to Belgium b/c his new husband can’t get a visa for the US or if he can, it will just take too long. We’re all thrilled that they will be going together.

  32. Thanks to all for a calm analysis on Scalia, someone I know you dislike to hate. Elaine’s take on his having to be “the smartest guy in the room,” is a common pathology for judges, pols, etc. However, those who are “in the room” w/ him most, don’t seem to have that take on him. We get brief glimpses of these justices, usually on C-Span. My take is not so much that he needs to be the :”smartest guy,” he seems pretty comfortable w/ himself. My take is more he doesn’t suffer fools or foolishness very well. And, as a SC justice, you are in an enviable position of not having to do so very often. But, when being interviewed, or taking questions from the audience, you are exposed to stupidity. Nino seems to handle the stupid, grammar school, etc. questions sort of like Ted Williams did. Neither were politicians or diplomats.

  33. Finally. The obvious is now the law of the land. Sad that it took this long. While I am glad to see this, it is not in a sense a victory, but a restoration of what should have been there to begin with. The right was there all along. It’s just our gov’t chose to deny it.

  34. I think I heard some noise about Rand trying to shore up his voter block…. Maybe a nationwide bid is not to far off….

  35. And to think Clinton signed this DOMA stuff…

    President’s statement on DOMA

    Statement by President Bill Clinton
    On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

    Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

    I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms “marriage” and “spouse”.

    This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

    I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

  36. Quote of the Day: Nobody Cares About Federalism

    From Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in United States vs. Windsor:

    The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State….This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

    In a nutshell, Kennedy says the Constitution doesn’t forbid states from banning same-sex marriage. But if a state allows same-sex marriage, the federal government can’t refuse to recognize it. Marriage is a state concern—in fact, it’s literally a textbook example of a state concern—not a federal one. Taken as a whole, this ruling was as pure a defense of federalism as we’ve seen in a while.

    So why did all the conservative justices oppose it? Answer: Because no one actually cares about federalism. It’s merely a convenient veneer when you prefer one outcome over another. Yesterday state sovereignty was of crucial concern when conservatives gutted the Voting Rights Act. Today, they couldn’t care less about it.

  37. Scalia is not at all a stupid man and he is very smart. He is though a supremely arrogant and ignorant man. His ignorance is his inability to see that he will twist any logic to arrive at his political pre-judgments, his lack of self awareness and his smug belief that anything he does is right. These tendencies are clearly shown in his dissent. Where is the “originalist” champion of States Rights in that dissent. We see instead a childish petulance that his own limited views of morality have lost the day.

  38. The decision and the scope was 100% predictable and was only a surprise to those who do not understand or refuse to understand how the SCOTUS operates. The SCOTUS operates on behalf of big business and big government. So for any case before the SCOTUS simply ask “cui bono?” and all will be clear. Big business is very much behind promoting same-sex marriages and in helping them to become economically stronger. Big government also benefits because it will have to get even bigger to deal with the multi-state differences. At least three members of the SCOTUS are homosexual or bisexual, but that has little to do with the decision. The justitutes take their marching orders from their corporate masters.

  39. One thing will always confuse me.. why does what people do in their personal lives apparently affect so many others ex. what does what 2 adult woman who are in a relationship affect the lives of those in a heterosexual relationship? are they paying their bills? why exactly are people opposed to gay marriage? and please leave out the part about what the bible says. the bible was written and rewritten by fanatical clerics and po lie tricksters for their own benefit. especially seeing how those who know of skull and bones.know exactly whats that all about. along with other things. it amazes me that the same people opposed to same sex marriage are still apparently involved heavily with the catholic church actually with any organized religion i mean its all over the place about the CHILDREN who were abused by priests,popes,pastors,deacons, etc the young girls who faced single parent hood and excommunication because they were impregnanted by those who run organized religion. with all of that said.

    I still dont see who i decide to love is the business of any one else… especially the scotus

  40. Ralph,

    Considering this case likely paves the way for disallowing companies to deny benefits to same sex couples – which costs them money – exactly how does this operate on behalf of big business?

  41. And the Supreme Court also said that Congress does not know its a from a hole in the ground when it comes to state discrimination in voting rights.

  42. The Supreme Court just struck down the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This Act took virtually a hundred years from the Civil War to effectuate 15th Amendment to the Constitution. Look the story up on ScotusBlog, Apparently the case will not get any traction here on Turleyblog and the case does not measure up to the gay marriage issue.

  43. Let me repeat for those who do not understand or for those who refuse to understand the SCOTUS. BIG BUSINESS rules the SCOTUS. The justices are merely justitutes in the service of Big Business (and its Partner, Big Government). Among the many big businesses supporting same-sex marriages (“SSM”) are Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mastercard, and ALL of the major Banks.

    Sure, there are some businesses that oppose SSM, like Chick-fil-a, but they are strictly small potatoes. I’m talking BIG business, not the small-fries. There are many reasons that Big Business benefits: many of the top executives and staff members are homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexuals; the homosexual lobby is a very powerful one and even controls certain entire governmental units, such as ICE. But most of all, it helps the bottom line of big business.

    As for those who talk of additional benefits being a cost of business, that is not a real factor for BIG BUSINESS. Small businesses, maybe, but not the big ones. Benefits are merely part of wages that employees would otherwise receive. They are NOT “freebees,” but are built into salaries. If Big Business has to pay more for benefits, they will simply take it out of salaries or make other adjustments.

    Again, the decisions and the scope were 100% predictable by those who understand who the SCOTUS reports to and how they reach their decisions. All the other posturing and pontificating (by such justitutes as Scalia) is strictly for show. EVERY SCOTUS decision is reached to benefit Big Business and/or Big Government. ALWAYS.

    If any SCOTUS decision should be pending on any matter whatsoever, all you have to do is to figure out “cui bono?” and you’ll know which way the SCOTUS will go.

  44. Explain how an increase to salaries that are costs big business is currently avoiding by denying benefits to same sex couples works to businesses benefit? They are in effect going to paying higher salaries which means . . . spending more money on employees and their S.O.s.

    The decision was 100% predictable because you’d have had to throw the 14th Amendment under the bus to rule otherwise.

  45. The SCOTUS has absolutely no compunction about throwing any law under the bus when it suits the purposes of big business and government. The SCOTUS has gutted the 1st and 4th amendments several times, for example. Remember my rule. If it’s the regular citizen vs. big government or big business, the regular citizen LOSES. ALWAYS!

    I’ve already explained how big business PROFITS from these rulings.

    Want more details?

    This is all you need to know:

    Cliff Asness–A quantitative financial theorist who founded a systematic trading hedge fund in his time at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Asness currently runs his hedge fund in AQR Capital Management.

    Asness joined forces with four other wealthy Republicans, providing a pivotal $1.5 million donation to the “Win More States Fund” of the New York-based Freedom to Marry. The five wealthy libertarian Republicans are considered to be the major financiers of the successful effort to legalize same-sex marriage in New York state.

    Jeff Bezos–As Benzinga reported in our list of Top Libertarian CEOs in Business Today, the Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) CEO made his biggest splash in activism to-date with a record $2.5 million contribution to defend Washington state’s same-sex marriage law in 2012.

    Steven Cohen–A billionaire Republican and former federal prosecutor who served as New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s right-hand man, The New York Times credits Cohen with “direct[ing] the administration’s effort to legalize same-sex marriage.”

    Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer–In 2012, the diehard progressive Gates and his fellow Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) co-founder Steve Ballmer joined forces to defend same-sex marriage in Washington, contributing $100,000 each.

    Gates would up the ante, providing an additional $500,000 to Washington United for Marriage in 2012 with his wife Melinda .

    David Geffen–The openly gay media mogul and billionaire David Geffen has contributed $1.5 million to support gay marriage efforts in California. Outside of several record companies, Geffen was one of three founders of DreamWorks Studios, now owned by Viacom (NASDAQ: VIAB).

    Tim Gill–Colorado software millionaire Tim Gill founded Quark Inc., in 2004. An extremely dedicated activist, Gill committed $10 million in support of LGBT issues in 2006 alone, and in 2010, raised $800,000 for a pro-LGBT organization he founded. More recently, Gill put down $25,000 to defeat local Colorado candidates who opposed same-sex marriage.

    Peter Lewis–The chairman of insurance giant Progressive (NYSE: PGR) is a diehard liberal donor who also happens to have a son that is homosexual. For years, he’s donated millions to support the same-sex marriage cause.

    Daniel Loeb–Loeb is a Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) investor who now runs Third Point LLC, a New York-based hedge fund with $11.6 billion in assets. Loeb joined Asness, Cohen and two other billionaire Republicans with liberal social views, posting a $1.5 million donation that helped fuel New York’s same-sex marriage victory in 2012.

    John Morgridge–The billionaire chairman of Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: CSCO) — once CEO of the company — has been an active financier of gay marriage campaigns. In 2008, he helped back the movement against Proposition 8 in California.

    Michael Moritz–Moritz is a big-time venture capitalist at Sequoia Capital, whose investments have included Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), Oracle (NASDAQ: ORCL), Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: EA), LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD) and many others. In 2008, he was included in a petition favoring marriage equality in California.

    Pierre Omidyar–The founder of eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY), Omidyar has become a dedicated philanthropist, backing the “No on 8” movement and attaching his name to the petition urging California voters to support marriage equality. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons).

    Larry Page and Sergey Brin–The Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) co-founders have been active supporters of same-sex marriage. In 2008, Bern and Page donated $100,000 and $40,000, respectively, to defeat Proposition 8.

    Steven Roth–Conservative billionaire Steven Roth is a real estate developer and has a son that is homosexual. Together with his wife, the Roth family has donated a total of $33,600, supporting Republican New York state senators who backed same-sex marriage.

    Eric Schmidt–Schmidt is the Executive Chairman at Google, serving as the tech giant’s CEO from 2001 to 2011. A major Obama supporter, Schmidt attached his name to the “No on 8” petition featuring tech giants like eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and venture capitalist Michael Moritz.

    Howard Schultz–The Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) CEO made major headlines in the last few days for taking on a company shareholder who didn’t like Schultz’s public endorsement of same-sex marriage. The company, in an effort spearheaded by Schultz, defended Washington state’s same-sex marriage provisions in 2012.

    Paul Singer–Like Roth, Singer also has a gay son. Despite his support of Mitt Romney in 2012, the head of Elliott Management Corporation — a hedge fund — joined four other Republican donors including Cliff Asness, contributing $1.5 million toward legalizing gay marriage in New York state.

    Jeffrey Skoll–Skoll was once the president at eBay. He was also one of the bigger names who opposed Proposition 8 in California, which would have outlawed same-sex marriage.

    Jon Stryker–The heir of Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker Corporation (NYSE: SYK) founder Homer, Jon and his sister committed a combined $1.85 million in efforts to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2006. In 2010, Styker contributed $602,000 in support of LGBT rights and two years later, he gave $325,000 to defeat a Minnesota measure which would have made same-sex marriage illegal.

    Peter Thiel–The founder of PayPal is an openly gay libertarian who has been active in causes to legalize same-sex marriage. Thiel also helped found GOProud, an organization representing conservative/libertarian gays, lesbians and their allies.
    Jeffrey Yang and David Filo

    Yahoo’s co-founders, Yang and Filo, joined Pierre Omidyar, Eric Schmidt and others in their backing of the “No on 8” movement that opposed California’s Proposition 8 back in 2008.

    And so on, and so forth.

    Are we getting the picture yet? I will not exasperate myself if you do not understand how big business benefits. If you don’t get it, you are hopelessly stunod, and there is little that I or anyone else can do to help jolt your degenerated, flacid brain tissues. Over and out.

  46. Ralph,
    Where are you citations to prove that there are three justices that are gay or bi-sexual? By your math, that leaves 6 justices that are straight. That is a really scandalous claim to make about anyone, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. So why didn’t SCOTUS uphold DOMA?

  47. Why would is be “scandalous” for anyone, a Supreme Court Justice, electrician, teacher, doctor, etc. to be gay?

  48. nick:

    yeah, why would it be scandalous? I have a very good lesbian friend, she would be very hurt by some one saying it is scandalous to be gay. I am hurt for her.

    Did Ralph Adamo say that?

  49. Bron, Stop hitting on my new friend. MikeS did some pimping yesterday and hooked us both up last night. We have a miniature golf date.

  50. It is sad that my children and grandchildren will inherit a country of queers. I am tired of political correctness. Lets call them what they are and stop putting a nice ring to it. Marriage from our inception has been one man and one woman and that is what we should continue to be. Man made laws can’t change what is normal. Man and woman are made physically to accommodate one another and that can’t change.

  51. MikeS, Everyone gave pretty even handed takes on Nino when I asked. You seem to have real issues w/ him. “Arrogant and ignorant,” “smug,” “lack of self awareness.” I’ll refrain from making a painfully obvious observation, and just say, “Keep your sunny side up..up!” You did leave out “racist” this time. Did you just forget to write it, or have you reconsidered that scandalous accusation. I hope it’s the latter, but it’s probably the former. But, I’m always looking for that glass half full of milk.

  52. George:

    how about a country that just lets people be who they are and leaves them alone to live their lives as they think best for them? How about leaving your children and grandchildren a free country? Gay marriage is a pimple on an elephants a$$ compared to the real problems facing our country.

    If gays want to have an acknowlegded union, what is the big deal? The IRS targeting citizens, NSA spying, expanding government, high taxation, endless war, government takeover of medicine, those are real problems.

    You are being as PC as what you dont like.

  53. Bron, rafflaw, who is a good tempered, genuinely nice guy, that I’ve come to like, said it was “scandalous.” I think I know where he’s coming from, that being it would be front page news. But, I also believe raf and I would agree that the IRS, NSA, AP, stuff is scandalous. Gay justices would just be big time news. Except, maybe in the case of Roberts, who voted w/ the minority on DOMA. More hypocritical than scandalous in my book, but 6 of one, half dozen…

  54. “Arrogant and ignorant” and “smug” are indeed valid observations based on nothing more than reading his inconsistent and often contradictory opinions. His practically bi-polar stance on Federalism, especially when he’s not getting what he wants politically, often sound arrogant and ignorant. When he’s getting what he want? Like destroying the original intent he so often argues for (all the while proclaiming original intent) like the tortured logic of his concurrence in Citizens United. It not only comes off as smug, but it’s a logical contortionist act that a circus would be proud to have and woefully ignorant of the plain language of the Constitution as it applies to natural persons, not legal fictions. The Founders – aware of the corporate form and its very limited legal personality and what it was for as a legal tool – could have included corporations specifically as “people” but didn’t. “Lack of self awareness”? Could be pure supposition, but it isn’t implausible. Personally, I think he knows exactly what he’s doing and that makes him all the more vile as a jurist.

    Scalia isn’t a nice guy or a good jurist. He’s not a consistent or a principle based legal reasoner. He’s blatantly swayed by his personal politics if they conflict with established legal doctrine and precedent. You may like him, but you might want to be prepared to be in the minority on that matter on all but the most right wing blogs, nick. Of all the Justices, he seems to be the most universally disliked in the profession, but it’s more for his inconsistent work which often ignores established principle in favor of his personal politics than his sterling (lack) of personality. A good jurist would never put personal politics above principle, precedent and well established doctrine.

  55. Alabama is going to entertain a legislative bill to deny the right to vote to gay married people. Holy Cow. This makes the other case just decided by the Supreme Court on the ‘Voting Rights Act quite relevant.

  56. @ GENE H ISNT THAT THE POINT? to be inconsistent as to keep the people distracted to what is really going on with the country actually let me change that the world? on one hand they don’t approve of gay marriage. yet on the other they fund the very groups who are actively pushing for gay marriage rights. just like abortion. on one hand they push legislation that would make abortion illegal. while on the other they fight to NOT give out protection that is needed to protect couples from unwanted pregnancies. ALL THEY DO IS DOUBLE SPEAK and of course its fallen for every time. …

    We have no money for education, housing, food, etc but plenty of money for specialized military weapons, bike lanes, consultants to tell the corporation how to build this and where. we have no jobs but are expected to pay taxes or go to jail. We are expected to obey the law but no longer even know what the laws truly are…

  57. Rafflaw, although I have a great deal of knowledge and evidence to back up anything I say, I would suggest that you do some of your own research on the Internet. Unfortunately, now is not the best time to do that because if you search under the Roberts, Kagen, or Sotomajor and “gay” you will end up getting references to the latest SCOTUS case, rather than the evidence regarding their sexual preferences and predilections. Try it in a couple of weeks if you really want to know about them.

  58. George said: “It is sad that my children and grandchildren will inherit a country of queers.”

    Really? This blog has resorted (or has tolerated) to name calling as justification for advocating one’s opinion?

  59. Robinh,

    There’s a lot of truth in that. Scalia is pretty much openly and fairly described a fascist, as are Roberts and Ailto. Kennedy, who used to be all over the map, is rapidly joining their ranks by some of his opinions. Thomas? He just does whatever the other four (particularly Scalia) tells him to do. The “Gang of Five” is a real thing on SCOTUS and as each critical matter comes before them, they consistently advance their corporatist political agenda but occasionally throw a bone to civil libertarians to keep them from focusing on how badly the citizens of this country are getting screwed by an increasingly privatized corporate driven government and by corporations proper.

  60. Gene; Jeso. I guess I agree. I think Scalia is coming from his Italian background. Those guys are sequeyed. They post themselves here. Then there are the black guys, then the Irish. Blazing Saddles: Not The Irish. And a guy like Scalia is somewhat predictable. He is not a bigot but he is not for equal protection. Its because of his self notion of being a wop. that meant With Out Papers. But he is definitely restricted in his world views by his background. New York is much of it. Turdy turd and a turd. (33rd Street and 3rd Ave.). As a matter of fact too many of the Justices are from New York.

  61. Or you could back up your contentions with evidence, Ralph. I know it’s probably a novel idea for you, but you should try it some time.

  62. Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, James Brown, Mick Jagger, Tommy Lee Jones, the list can go on forever of great people in different fields that were/are disliked to despised. But they were/are great. Some athletes were hated by opposing players, but liked by their teammates. Cobb was despised by all.

    I had fairly frequent contact w/ Sir Georg Solti when he was conductor of the Chicago Symphony. He would stay in a suite @ The Drake when I was a house dick. EVERYONE said to stay away from him. He had a reputation of not only being hard on musicians, but also his personal staff. However, I saw him and his valet work together and he was a gent. He was always a gent w/ me, liked to hear tales of naughtiness in the hotel. It does appear many in the legal profession despise Nino as you state. However, he has a cordial relationship w/ his fellow justices and is reportedly good friends w/ Ginsburg and Breyer. Gene, I despise politics. A big part of politics is, “We like/hate this person” and you’re expected to chime in “yes, sir.” That’s not how I role. I make up my own mind about people. And, I like Nino. Much of what I see as being a problem for him personality wise is his being an only child. Keith Richards writes poignantly about that in his bio, I just finished. And being an only child is something a kid has no control over. But, to each their own. I was just struck how much more venom was released by MikeS than by others. It was noteworthy, but no big deal. I just like to try and understand shit.

  63. And all of those people were/are actually great.

    Scalia is not a great jurist by objective standards and it has shit to do with his personality, nick.

    Cordial doesn’t mean he’s a good jurist.

    As I said, you like him. Many, if not most, in the profession don’t like him and it has everything to do with his work first and foremost. That you choose to like him? Is your choice. But that the criticism of him is considerably more substantive than “he’s a dick”? That might ought to tell you something.

    Also, if you think a “big part of politics is, ‘We like/hate this person’, then I suggest your understanding of politics is superficial. That may be a fair description of politics in high school or kindergarten, but in the real grown up corporate and government world, politics is about far, far more than personality. It’s about agendas and real pols will work with a guy who was their enemy in the morning if it gets them what they want to further their agenda in the afternoon. Personality is, at best, a secondary matter and usually not relevant at all. If you get to do in someone you don’t like? It’s gravy. If you get to help someone you like? It’s gravy. But getting what your agenda demands? That’s the meat.

    That’s how that game is played.

    And based on his work product as a jurist? Scalia is more than a bit ripe. Something a sauce isn’t going to cover. He’s got one of the few jobs where all personal agendas are to be set aside in favor of the analytical framework of legal doctrine, precedent and law that ultimately must conform to the Constitution without destroying it in the process. His politics need to end where the robe begins.

    Scalia fails at all of that.

  64. Gene,
    I am torn as to whether Scalia, Thomas or Alito are the worst Supreme Court justices we have ever had. Scalia is smarter than the other two which makes him more dangerous. The other two are intellectual midgets compared to Scalia.

    Alito is even more openly partisan than the other two. What judge rolls their eyes at the ceiling when a colleague reads a dissent or the President speaks? That is the kind of thing you see a litigant in a cheesy divorce case do, not a judge. Alito the drama queen.

    As for Thomas, it is a tossup as to whether he is lazy or not very bright. I am thinking more along the lines of just occupying a chair.

  65. Except w/ those 4th amendment rulings. He’s been your guy on those of late. Then he’s a “good” jurist. And, the politics of high school is NO different than the big money politics. It’s just more money. How many people here vote for, campaign for, people because, “he’s our guy” and “the other guy is the bogey man.” One of the ways I read people is I put them back in my mind to when they were in high school. Works like a charm. You think Bubba and Obama became prez secondarily on personality. Puleeease. The great Martin Mull said “Show biz is just like middle school, only w/ a lot more money.” And show biz and politics are ugly cousins.

  66. No, nick. Then he surprises me by taking the principled stand instead of the political stand.

    As for the politics? You are mistaking a polemic and rhetorical tactic for politics as a whole. They are not the same thing.

  67. Nick,

    I released venom on Scalia because I loathe the man. Politically I don’t agree with Roberts or Alito but I feel neutral about them personally. Thomas I feel is corrupt but he doesn’t anger me. With Scalia it is personal because I personally see him as a self satisfied hypocrite. Politics is normally not a personal thing for me. It only gets really personal on a broad scale. When I think about the misery some people inflict upon many it makes me angry. When I express myself here it is with passion that at times approaches anger at what I see as injustice. However, most people who know me never see that side of me. I try never to talk politics with friends or acquaintances unless we’re on the same page and then rarely. Why bother? Most times I won’t change anyones mind. So while most people who know me understand my politics it is not a distraction.

    Most of my friends and acquaintances see me as I am which is laid back.
    In company I’d much rather listen than talk. I like to understand where people are coming from and what their experiences of life are. Most of all I like to have fun. My Father used to criticize me because I turned everything I did into play. The H.S. yearbook committee wrote “Mike thinks that life is a snap of his finger’s” and they weren’t that far off. Contrary to what you may believe about me I don’t take things to seriously, least of all myself. If I could be any animal it would be a Bonobo. Overall as I’ve said about myself before I love people but hate humanity as a whole. There is too much cruelty in this life for me to ignore it, but if I didn’t let that thought go most of the time I’d be unhappy. As it is this is the best time of my life.

  68. One of the things that annoys me the most about Scalia is his tendency to resort to reductio ad absurdum arguments. It is as if he never understood the logical fallacy, given the number of times he uses it.

  69. All the supreme court justices have accomplished more in life than I have . I don’t look at myself as stupid, and since they achieved more in life than I, how can I look at them as being stupid.

    Maybe Gene can say if this makes logical sense.

  70. RobinH,

    Why people are so interested in others sex lives mystifies me as well. Just as emotionally I don’t get why men get so threatened by Gay men. I’ve had many gay friends and even some who came on to me and I found that flattering. In my single days my Lesbian friends were confidantes since we all had the same sexual interests. Gay, straight, Black, White its all the same humanity. DOMA’s passing is a wonderful thing for all of us, though some don’t see it that way and I wonder what scares them so much?

  71. “That is jaw-dropping.”

    That is surely bizarre language. Do you see that sort of thing often?

    I can say “bizarre” as a simple observation because I’m not paid to get from Point A to Point B in argument/logic, or justify my position at Point B having left Point A.

  72. Darren,
    Who is to say whether one person’s accomplishments are more worthy than another? You have more integrity in your foot than some who wear those black robes have in their whole body.

    “Accomplishment” is a relative thing. There was some mention of Ty Cobb just above. He could play baseball with great skill, but he was a lousy human being, by all accounts.

  73. Darren,

    I think it’s intuitive, but I think it depends on how you define “accomplished”. The acquisition of knowledge? Power? Money? Family? Sex? Fame? I know people who have some or all of these things in their lives. Some are smart, some aren’t. I find that success in life is just as much luck and timing as it is preparation and innate skill. As my grandfather used to say, “It’s better to be lucky than good, but being lucky and good is the best.” Accomplished is no guarantee of intelligence although it can be an indicator.

  74. It takes a blind arrogance to use the phrase “jaw-dropping” in a Supreme Court dissent.

    Scalia worries not what he says to anyone, because he is “standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions…”

    No, Scalia is not stupid, not exactly. His incredible arrogance prevents him from considering any opinions but his own.

    My strongest impession of Scalia comes from an interview video, in which he was asked how he felt about the Bush v. Gore decision. A human being might have said, “Well, I did what I thought was right, at the time.”

    Scalia said, “Get over it.” Breathtaking.

    He’s not stupid, he’s just stupid in comparison with his shining self-image. He keeps himself ignorant by virtue of his astounding arrogance.

    It’s time to repost his photo on my Facebook wall. It’s captioned, “Does this ass make my wall look fat?”

  75. what, no “omg they’re going to marry their pets”? the best we can get is ralfie claiming some of the supremes are gay? (ralfie, conservapedia is a joke, not a source)

    what a bunch of lame a$$ trolls we have here.

    i’m off to foxnation to see what i can stir up. bwahahahaha

  76. pete,
    Ralph is adequate comic relief, most days. His jolting of our “degenerated, flacid brain tissues” is worth the price of admission.

  77. And now comes the flow of straight couples showing how gay marriage has destroyed their marriages… *chirp*chirp
    … What? No crashing thunder of broken straight marriages?

    But, but, but… They said it would.

  78. For evidence that John Roberts is a homosexual or at the least a bisexual, see:

    The photo of him in his younger college days tells all. You do not need to possess “gaydar” to recognize Roberts’ sexual predilections. It is obvious to anyone.

    Not that there’s anything wrong about Roberts’ orientation–except that he feels a need to keep it in the closet. For example, shortly after he rendered the thumbs-up for Obamacare (a Pro-Big-Government–anti-mainstream citizen decision), Roberts went on a vacation overseas. Of course, he went without his wife, and whom he spent his times with there remains a closely guarded secret that only the NSA, CIA, FBI, and others on a need-to-know basis are in the loop on.

  79. Gene H.,

    “Thomas? He just does whatever the other four (particularly Scalia) tells him to do. ”

    Why don’t “you …back up your contention[] with evidence”.

  80. MIke wrote:
    “Just as emotionally I don’t get why men get so threatened by Gay men.”
    It’s only because they let themselves believe there is a threat. At least one day a week I go down and have a few drinks at a bar downtown to kind of relax and unwind a bit, and it might surprise some but the place I go is a gay bar. I like this place better than the others because it is quiet on the day I go and the people there are decent and more friendly. Plus, the atmosphere is more relaxing to me and I like to visit with the bartender there who’s a pretty good guy. Sometimes my wife goes with me.

    There is nothing threatening about this place. Which is more dangerous, the gay bar with couples visiting and laughing and such, or the drunken cowboy bars where there are brawls every friday and saturday night.?

  81. My wife is presently in Arlington, VA on vacation. I remained at home. I didn’t recognize until now that she is lesbian. But I now have proof as I have learned from one of these articles here that going on vacation out of state/country without one’s spouse is the definitive sign of gayness or lesbianness or bisexualness.

    Maybe by her going to Arlington she is only bisexual because if she decided to go instead to Greece I would then know she was flamingly gay because she certainly would have visited Lesbos. And surely she had a layover in Holland with all those famous dikes there. Or so the CIA tells me.

    A guy can learn a lot here.

  82. George declared:
    “It is sad that my children and grandchildren will inherit a country of queers”
    If it is upsetting to you, why don’t you just call up your probate attorney and modify your Will? No reason to feel guilty about it, if you don’t want your heirs to inherit your princely state, just assign it to someone else. Remember, it’s your Country of Queers, who you give it to after death is your decision.

  83. “For evidence that John Roberts is a homosexual or at the least a bisexual, see:

    The photo of him in his younger college days tells all. You do not need to possess “gaydar” to recognize Roberts’ sexual predilections. It is obvious to anyone.”


    Always willing to give someone a chance I followed your link and read the article. The website admits it deals in gossip. Read the entire article and looked at the picture from his college days, The “evidence” they provide is all rumor and gossip that speculates for instance that he married late at age 41 and that he and his wife have adopted rather than biological children. A late marriage is proof of nothing and as far as adopted children are you aware that a high percentage of Gay men have had successful intercourse with women and can easily father children. The “picture” you refer to shows 3 handsome young males with the speculation that “some” peoples “gaydar” might conclude they were gay. The climax of the article which shows it proves nothing is:

    “To sum things up, as A3G previously stated, “Is Judge John Roberts gay? Hmm, who knows?” Unless some new and truly compelling information emerges, let’s just leave it at that. As far as A3G is concerned, the question of Judge Roberts’s possible homosexuality — like the matter of his two adopted kids — should be shoved back into the closet. ‘Nuff said!”

    Ralph you make many statements here with great confidence always asserting you have evidence to prove your positions, Your “evidence” always seems to be speculation combined with your wishful thinking. Given
    this, I would hope that you never serve on a jury, since you seem incapable of determining what is evidence and what is speculation. This example of “evidence” you provide only calls into question your credibility.

  84. So Now, Mr. Eminent Legal Scholar;

    On a Marriage License Issued to Lesbians do we change:

    Husband: Slot A
    Wife: Slot B

    On a Marriage License Issued to Homosexual Males:

    Husband: Deviant A
    Wife: Deviant B


    At this rate can Bestiality approval be far behind???

    We also can no longer claim to fight for Mom and Apple Pie, since she can possibly be sharing the foxhole with us….

  85. “Maybe by her going to Arlington she is only bisexual because if she decided to go instead to Greece I would then know she was flamingly gay because she certainly would have visited Lesbos.”


    That is quite true since it is well known that any women visiting Lesbos are lesbians. Most males living on Lesbos are really lesbian also. The island has very deep and very old wells and the water is enchanted, so whoever drinks it becomes a Lesbian. Many a Gay woman wanting to seduce her straight friend has talked their friend into accompanying them to Lesbos and then having degenerate sex with them. I saw the proof in a movie on the “Playboy Channel”, real evidence if you ask me.

  86. Mike,

    That’s not the first time Ralph has proffered that particular piece of “evidence”.


    Lieutenant Colonel US Army Retired,

    That’s a terrible problem with false equivalences you’ve got there. Maybe you should get that looked at. Not by a physician, of course. A shot of penicillin won’t cure that. I suggest consulting a logician or perhaps an ethicist. And educating yourself to the scientific fact that homosexuality isn’t a deviant behavior but rather a normal expression of human sexuality in a statistically significant minority of our species (as it is in other primates and even dolphins).

  87. Lieutenant Colonel US Army Retired,

    Thank you for your service and thank you too for retiring because clearly you have no place in today’s Army. You comparison of Homosexuality to bestiality is proof you are prejudiced against homosexuals. Your Mom and apple pie comment shows that you disdain women in the Armed Forces. So it is good you have retired and can collect your well deserved pension. I say that with no irony whatsoever. Your prejudice prevents you from seeing that most armed forces in the industrial world do not share your view. Your knowledge of the history of warfare also shows you paid scant attention to the Spartans who one most certainly would classify as homosexual and were the greatest fighting force of their time. You gave service to our country and I certainly hope you enjoy your retirement and your well deserved benefits.

  88. Mike: Is it speculation to say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hangs around with other ducks that the “evidence” points to the creature being, in fact, a duck? Yes, the article presents the myriad separate indicators ALL pointing to Roberts’ real orientation, and NONE pointing in any other direction, as “not proven.” But they are indicators that are called “circumstantial evidence.” Look that up, because you obviously know nothing about the law. Circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as evidence that is “direct evidence” And a great many cases are determined based on such circumstantial evidence.

    I realize that all of this discussion is totally lost on you. You have received many jolts to your degenerated, flacid brain tissues, but the synapses are simply disfunctional. Don’t worry. You’re not alone. Gene and Darren have the same issues.

  89. Ralph,
    Your flaccid, degenerated brain tissues and dysfunctional synapses repeatedly prevent you from spelling “flaccid” correctly. Practice, as in endlessly bleating the same tired innuendos, doesn’t improve your spelling.

    Perhaps your flaccid brain tissues would benefit from one of the new tumescence agents.

    You are correct. Your discussion of Roberts’ sexual orientation is lost on us. It’s really none of our business.

  90. Mike S, your reply to the Lt. Col. who is now (mercifully) retired at 11:27 AM wins the Internets today. Well done.

  91. Lieutenant Colonel US Army Retired (whew),
    “On a Marriage License Issued to Lesbians do we change:
    Husband: Slot A
    Wife: Slot B”

    On a Marriage License Issued to Homosexual Males:
    Husband: Deviant A
    Wife: Deviant B
    Are you presently employed modifying state marriage license forms?
    If so, ask your supervisor.
    If not, why are you concerned with this? Not enough to do?

    “At this rate can Bestiality approval be far behind???”
    That depends on the beast. A horse’s behind is indeed far from its head. Don’t get kicked.

    In case you truly are involved in writing marriage license forms, it’s:
    Husband: Beast A
    Wife: Beast B

    “We also can no longer claim to fight for Mom and Apple Pie, since she can possibly be sharing the foxhole with us….”
    Did you ever claim to fight for Mom and Apple Pie? C’mon, really? Watching too many John Wayne movies?
    Whose Mom?
    Apple Pie shared the foxhole with you? How fortunate! How did you find room for the Apple Pie, with all those Slots, Deviants and Atheists in there, with you?

    I have lots more questions, and plenty of time to answer yours. I’m retired, too.

    Old Degenerate Hippie Biochemist Software Engineer Retired (whew)

  92. Bob, your lardenous, saponaceous, oleaginous, and degenerated, flaccid brain tissues failed to recognize that I spelled dysfunctional as “disfunctional.” But keep trying. I enjoy reading powerful arguments like my ideas can’t be correct because I misspelled something when I expressed them. In the future, please try to be more complete and consistent with such powerful arguments.

  93. I expected a lot of celebration from this crowd but the bottom line is, when a Supreme Court says or implies that one class of people is at a higher status or protected status above other people, that’s a big problem that will only lead to more trouble further down the road.

    There is a groundswell of people that are getting fed up with the militant homosexual agenda being forced on everyone else. This will only fuel the fire. In addition, marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Period. Even if a group of people in robes say it isn’t. 2+2 = 4. Every time, even if someone tries to tell you otherwise.

    This problem is going to get harder and harder to fix. At least the states that still have some sanity and do not have a corrupt court system that legislates the cause of special interest groups over others, can block and/or not recognize marriage that isn’t between a man and a woman. But eventually someone will need to fix the problem – plug the hole before the dam bursts

  94. Ralph,
    I noticed your spelling of “disfunctional” and deliberately used the alternative spelling, just to totally vanquish you. I see that you finally learned to spell “flaccid.” Did my use of that spelling produce tumescence in your flaccid brain tissue?
    Your first sentence is terminally redundant, as a molecular biologist would point out. “Lardenous” is part of the redundancy, but not a word. No points for that one. Did you find that on Conservapedia?
    The correctness of your ideas has not a wit to do with your spelling. Your spelling merely distracts from the lunacy of your rants. Better keep it.

  95. Another confusing set of decisions (or non-decisions) by the US Supreme Court on Gay Marriage.

    PHOENIX (AP) — Gay marriage proponents marked another victory Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from Arizona and Nevada involving the rights of same-sex couples.

    The justices let stand an appeals court ruling striking down an Arizona law that made state employees in same-sex relationships ineligible for domestic partner benefits. The Nevada case was a challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The court did not elaborate on the reason for not taking up the cases.

    The court’s decisions on the two cases are not as sweeping as rulings Wednesday that made it a landmark week for gay rights. The Supreme Court issued decisions that struck down a provision that denies federal benefits to married gay couples and also cleared the way for state laws that recognize marriage equality.

    In Arizona, the decision means dozens of same-sex state workers will be allowed to keep employee benefits. For the Nevada case, the gay marriage ban will remain intact, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will decide the next step.

    Republican Gov. Jan Brewer denied Thursday that Arizona had targeted gay couples and slammed the court for not recognizing the state’s right to balance its budget by limiting employee benefits.

    “This case has never been about domestic partners, same-sex or otherwise,” Brewer said in a statement. “It is always been about the authority of elected state officials to make decisions with which we have been entrusted by the voters.”

    Arizona’s constitution bans gay marriage and a 2009 law signed by Brewer repealed domestic partner benefits for state workers. Brewer said the state was in a fiscal crisis and couldn’t afford to extend health care benefits to employees’ dependents if they weren’t married. She said the policy was legal because it applied to all employees, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Gay marriage proponents counter that the policy was discriminatory because heterosexual couples may marry to obtain benefits, while gay couples can’t under state law.

    “The state is excluding only one group of employees from family coverage and that is lesbian and gay employees,” said Tara Borelli, a lawyer for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles.

    The conservative Center for Arizona Policy, which opposes gay marriage, had supported the state’s position in court, and has vowed to fight any efforts to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage.

    “The Legislature and the governor should have the authority to determine benefits for state employees,” President Cathi Herrod said after the ruling.

    The legal battle could soon be resolved by voters. Gay marriage proponents began gathering signatures Thursday to change the Arizona constitution and legalize gay marriage. The Equal Marriage Arizona campaign hopes to collect roughly 400,000 signatures to get its constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2014.

    The Nevada case was originally filed on behalf of eight same-sex couples, and it argued that a 2002 state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the same rights as married couples.

    A federal judge in Reno ruled last year that the gay marriage ban was not a constitutional violation and it was upheld. The plaintiffs then appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while the anti-gay marriage group requested the Supreme Court hear the appeal instead of the San Francisco court.

    Borelli said Nevada law is questionable because the state grants domestic partners the same legal privileges afforded to married couples, while denying gays the right to marry. She said the state must rationalize the exclusion.

    The Nevada Legislature recently approved a measure that would legalize gay marriage but changing the state constitution is a lengthy process. Lawmakers must pass the same resolution in 2015 before it goes to voters for final approval on the 2016 ballot. If it clears both hurdles, it would become law. If it fails at any stage, the five-year process must start over.

    “We should just have a state law and be done with it,” said Sen. Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas. “In the constitution we shouldn’t be defining marriage, that’s not what the constitution is for.”

    Not legalizing same-sex marriage will have consequences for Nevada over time, said Atkinson, who made national headlines earlier this year when he publicly announced that he was gay during the state Senate’s debate on marriage equality.

    “We are a tourism state and we do rely on folks visiting our state, so some may decide they’re not going to come here because they don’t have the same rights here,” Atkinson said.

  96. Mike Observed:
    “Many a Gay woman wanting to seduce her straight friend has talked their friend into accompanying them to Lesbos ….. I saw the proof in a movie on the “Playboy Channel”, real evidence if you ask me.”
    Sadly, I missed that one but I am sure it is true because I read it on the internet and they cannot put anything on the internet that isn’t true.

    I also saw on the movie “Summer Lovers” that if a guy takes his girlfriend to a Greek Island named Santorini, he can experience the gratuity of a complimentary French Chick. So, the proof is, Women go alone become lesbian, Straight couples get a free French woman. But what happens if a man goes there alone? I hope it isn’t like Turkey and you go to a Turkish Prison.

  97. Bob, redundancy is necessary when dealing with subcretins with little ability to reason, so perhaps even you, with your severe mental impairments can grasp the need to have things repeated ad neasum to you. And many a word is invented. Yes–“Subcretin” is not an official word, nor is “lardenous,” but they are perfect choices nonetheless and are readily understood, even when used in a less than complete context.

  98. Darren,

    It’s true about Santorini and threesomes. Also the Lesbian effect is real. When the volcano there blew and destroyed Crete about 1,500 BCE, the remaining Cretan women fled to Santorini. Cretan women went topless because they were Lesbians who were into threesomes with males. They infested Santorini and to this day the island remaining after the volcano has been a sexual paradise. This was all discovered when they learned to decipher the Cretan writing know as Linear C. and discovered it was all gay pornography.

  99. Darren,

    I thought I was the only one who saw “Summer Lovers”. And stop giving away the secret about the free French women, man. There’s enough tourists as it is.😀

  100. Ralph,

    What is most striking about you is your humility and kind disposition towards others. A man with a really big heart and brain. Then again maybe with you knowing my political leanings my judgment of your character should be taken with a grain of salt, or even totally discounted.

  101. Yuor argoments are incredulouslly powherful and persusive. I am lurning meny tings from the wize posturs on thiss wunderfull blug.

  102. Ralph,

    Are you…trying to hurt my feelings? Please say it isn’t so.

    Turns out you’re not so good at that either.

    Your best one was something about “add nausea,” which you are good at, but like the rest of the subcretins here, I couldn’t comprehend it.

  103. Bob, why ar yuo so parrownoid? I haev the hutmost respuct for yuo, adn concider yuo two bee a prespicacious, intellighunt, and hihly combpashunate indevidual.

  104. Bob K.,

    Have you gotten your subcretin secret decoder ring yet? I’m still waiting for mine in the mail.

  105. Ralph:

    Are you having a stroke or just showing your contempt?

    If you are having a stroke call 911 now. Carry on otherwise, I cant help.

  106. Gene, I’m sure in your case you already have a “subcretin decoder.” It’s called a mirror.

  107. Ralph,

    I’m certain a mirror is a mirror. But don’t feel too bad about me not getting my ring yet. Fortunately for you, I understand fluent gibberish which accomplishes the same goal in translating your arguments (such as they are).

  108. Gene,
    Yes! I got my subcretin secret decoder ring on Wednesday!
    Oh…that’s not very secret, is it? My bad.

    I had some difficulty unpackaging it, as the decoder ring was under a cretin, who was uncooperative.

    My decoder spins, clicks, exults extemporaneously, and flashes merrily, whenever I read this blog. It decodes subcretin into !Xóõ, unfortunately, of which I have no understanding.

    I’m still at a loss to determine what Ralph’s talking about.

    Hubert and Ralph,

    I hope that you can console yourself, regarding the DOMA decision, by realizing that there are other fish in the sea.

    You’ve merely hit a bump in the road, in your effort to persecute and subjugate others. There are so many other groups to persecute, and other issues, in which to be cruel.

    Your whole life remains ahead of you.

  109. Mike & Gene:

    There is a convergence going on here. Mike, did you use that sub-cretin decoder ring to translate Linear C? The inventor of that ring must have been an expert in gay pornography to have made such a device. Could the ring be a Rosetta Stone humanity needed to translate that lost language, or is this another consipiracy?

    My wife is the grandaughter of a Greek epigrapher. Too bad he didn’t have the sub-cretin decoder ring, it would have been very useful in his studies. The stars must be aligned on the Turley Blog, many important historical discoveries happen here often.

  110. Darren,

    Not only is this a historic convergence, it is a harmonic one as well. Linear C was decoded by that great Cretanologist Professor Engorgus Phallus, who while exploring a deep cave under the town of Knossos, Crete found a huge many sided ring on the horn of a huge bull skeleton. That ring was the sub-cretin decoder ring, with its four sides covered with the same phrase written in four languages. Linear A, Linear B, what became Linear C and Sumerian. Since the first two Linears and Sumerian writing were already known and the phrase translated was the same in the other 3 languages, thus Linear C was translated. The phrase was: “Judge not lest you be judged Rolpha”. Rolpha was the Cretan king who had a shorter reign than Pippin the Short, was stoned to death after he decreed that the missionary position was the only accepted one for Cretans. Since Crete at the time was a polymorphous perverse culture they revolted and battled the Kings six loyal supporters. The supporters called themselves the Cretins and pledged their loyalty to King Rolpha. They battled for a long and hard three minutes but were finally overcome by the Band of Amazons hired by the revolutionaries who, were too busy at their orgies to do battle. They did enjoy stoning Rolpha though and cried out in unison “Rolpha what you adono good”, The new king, the first of many king Minos proclaimed the missionary position outlawed and the people cheered. Crete lived happily ever after, bouyed by their barebreasted women until Santorini erupted and those women that lived fled to what was left of Santorini.

  111. Now you’re just being silly, Mike.

    Everyone knows some of the barebreasted Creatan women fled to what would eventually be known as the Côte d’Azur.

  112. Bob,

    The only thing Santorum has erupted into lately is his hand. I mean that both in realty and metaphorically.


    I was taught that by the Professor on Rocky and Bullwinkle. So that’s history, not silliness. I’m only silly when I breathe.

  113. To Gene;
    Maybe Penicillin might be needed if I contracted a typical STD, but what anti Aids
    Cocktail will you be needing? It seems you come from a very shallow end of the gene pool…

    BTW, have you served in anything other than yourself???

  114. LTCUSAR,

    Speaking of pools, would I get the soles of my feet wet, if I walked through the waters of your mind?

    BTW, we’re all just dying to know. Which imperialist adventure did you participate in?

    There has been no declared “war” since 1945.

    Are you of the opinion that only those who make a career in the military should be allowed to venture opinions???

    Didja know that our Foundering Father, Thomas Jefferson, never served in the military? Despite his famous quote,

    “The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,”

    he never shed a drop of his own blood.

    I have nothing against those who spend time in the military. Unless they try denigrating those who don’t.

Comments are closed.