F**k Gay Marriage: Doesn't the Supreme Court have better things to consider?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts today said that marriage is just a label. He is absolutely right.  I can't wait to tell my wife that we're just "married". Doesn't mean anything.  Come to think of it, Supreme Court Justice is just a label.   Maybe I'm one of those. Maybe you are, too.

If familial references are just labels, why adopt? It's only a label.  Maybe POW, MIA and KIA are all labels and the Congressional Medal of Honor is just a doo-dad.  Maybe none of this stuff has any real meaning.  Why should I care who lives on my block?  Sex offender is just a label. Citizen and illegal alien are labels.  Why the brouhaha? I'm pretty sure dead is more than a label, though, neither of my parents raised any objections when we buried them.

Why, then is the highest court in the land (and if you don't think Scalia is high, read his opinions) considering the legality of prohibiting same-sex marriage?  I don't get it.  Two people fall in love and want to share each other's misery for the rest of their lives (or until divorce do them part). It may be inexplicable, but it seems quite natural.  Is there a sexual litmus test involved with getting a marriage license? If that's the case, I may be lucky to have gotten one.  If memory serves, I may have done one or two things in the privacy of my home that could disqualify me from marriage and possibly even walking through the fruit department at Safeway.

One my friends confided that his sex life (with his wife) consisted exclusively of manual stimulation. Sounds weird to me. Maybe they shouldn't have gotten married. Then again, it's just a label. I have another friend who I suspect is having relations with his Golden Retriever. I have to admit, it's a good looking dog, but I find myself covering my stuff when he heads my way. The dog, not the friend. I cover my stuff when the dog heads my way. Stay with me.

Why do we allow our church, I mean our government to poke around in our bedrooms, anyway? Obviously, the Bible is open to a great deal of interpretation.  If it wasn't there wouldn't be so many Bible-based religions, including over 20 denominations of Christianity. When my man Leviticus said that a man who lies with a man should be stoned, he was just making preliminary arguments for legalizing both gay marriage and marijuana.  Who knew?

It should be noted here that aforementioned Chief Justice John Roberts is a good man, a good husband and a good father.  Married to Jane for about 17 years, in 2000 they adopted infants Jack and Josie, both born in Ireland.  Sounds like the perfect family. Wouldn't it be just as perfect if Jane was Jason, the guy Justice Roberts roomed with in law school?

Incarcerated inmates without conjugal privileges can marry. So can elderly people who have no hope of having children and young people who have no desire to have them. The argument that marriage needs to include procreation rings especially hollow when considering Chief Justice Roberts' family.  From all appearances, it's a great family.  It is not, however a family created by the impregnation of the wife by the husband.  Which doesn't make it any less great a family.

In a 1992 brief Roberts wrote, "history shows that religious acknowledgments were part of the ceremonies of all three branches of government when the Republic was founded".  History also shows that slavery and other injustices were tolerated by all three branches of government until sacrifice overcame injustice, one by one.  Rather than drag out the past as an endorsement of the status quo, Chief Justice Roberts might apply those lessons to a more enlightened future.  Antonin Scalia might not agree, but Chief Justice Roberts might find it it his heart to do it for Jack and Josie.

Subscribe to the Chicago Board of Tirade

* You will never get SPAM
* Your email address will never be sold or given away
* You will only receive emails on days I post.
* You can unsubscribe at any time
* You can contact me anytime at: RJ@bobabrams.net

* Just type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button.


Leave a comment
  • The reason shows your misunderstanding of the role of the court itself.

    Two cases were decided below and review was sought. Essentially the one heard today coming from California did not raise the issue of whether there should be homosexual marriage; instead it raised the issues (a) whether voters could defend the initiative abolishing it, when the state attorney general refused to,* and (b) the Ninth Circuit, after ruling that they could instead of dismissing the suit for lack of an adverse party, decided that once a state judge gave gays the right, the state discriminated against them by taking it away. Neither of those issues is a slam dunk, but neither directly addresses the question.

    It will be more interesting to find out what the legal issues are in the Defense of Marriage Act case, coming up tomorrow.

    But, in any event, I'm sure that the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to take up the mantle of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and say there is no distinction between men and women for equal protection purposes.

    *In Illinois, the answer is clearer in that the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld that only Lisa Madigan can represent the state. The current case is a little more complicated, since it is technically against county clerks. Orr did not want to defend, but others intervened.

  • In reply to jack:

    I'm not really challenging a review of Prop 8 at the Supreme Court level. I'm challenging ANYONE being prohibited from marrying whomever they choose to marry. Any prohibition or restriction should be deemed unconstitutional.

  • If you are posting comments, there is an answer in today's Tribune on why the Supreme Court had to take the Defense of Marriage Act.

    There is one simple legal issue presented: If New York accepts homosexual marriage, should the wife of a deceased woman get the federal estate tax marital deduction--clearly an issue of federal law.

    Paradoxically, compared to the California case, here the plaintiff is arguing "states' rights."

    Given that issue of federal law, a clear 14th amendment question is raised whether the estate tax deduction, construed through DOMA discriminates. Not a clear solution to that question, though.

    But again, since Attorney General Holder won't defend the law, the article points out that the plaintiff may get her tax refund because there isn't a controversy in the constitutional sense before the Supreme Court, but nothing else is decided.

Leave a comment