Me either, so glad I got the news from FOX. Thanks Teenertot.

I had no idea, either! Excellent news. Now that gay people have the right to marry maybe can move on toward fixing the systemic disenfranchisement of unmarried adults by the US tax system, banks, and insurers (among many other public and private institutions) and maybe one day our culture can finally slough off contractual marriage altogether, because frankly it is a barbaric, deeply patriarchal practice (to say nothing of the historic blurring of the separation of church and state) that has no real purpose in modern, Western society that wouldn't be better served by some combination of civil contracts to deal with children a shared property, and whatever non-contractual religious or secular ceremonies the people who appreciate the ceremonial aspect of it choose.

Basically, now that everyone's allowed to get married we should work on not punishing people who aren't married, by choice or otherwise.

I'm talking specifically about legal marriage contracts here, of course. Obviously consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever sorts of pair (or more) bonds they want and consecrate them with whatever sorts of rituals they want (with maybe a few common sense exceptions).

Oh for fuck's sake Old Zircon, this is a great day and a historic achievement. Don't be that asshole who yells BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR PRISON SYSTEM

BANKERS. EVERYWHERE.

DRONE STRIKES.

Just be happy for gay people already.

She's on Fox but much like Anne Coulter, word is Megyn Kelly is a huge fag hag.

Eh, Anne Coulter isn't so much a fag hag as she views gay conservatives as useful idiots for her shitty views.

As for Megyn Kelly, much of what she's said about gay marriage and the fact that she's been known to be comfy with Tony Perkins makes me doubt the claims that she's anything resembling a fag hag.

Conservative: The constitution doesn't say you can do that.
Liberal: The constitution doesn't say you can't do that.

At any rate, good on them. At least, the 5 of them that have a conscience. Although I'm convinced that John Roberts saved the ACA because he knew it would be a national shitstorm if he struck it down, and he didn't want history to remember him as THAT big of a moron.

Roberts just always votes pro-business, and businesses told him they liked the ACA, so he did as his masters demanded.

I just started perusing the opinions, available here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The dissent starts on page 40 of the pdf. I've only read a few pages so far, but it appears there is a line of interpretation whereby the dissent was offering a dicta--much how Kennedy did a few years ago, allowing lower courts to over turn same sex marriage bans--that would allow lower courts to strike down the state bans on same sex marriage. From the dissent:

"In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage."

That's an interesting phrasing. It could be argued that by not enacting a single theory of marriage, then a plurality of theories must be allowed.

It is my sense so far, if I grant the dissent a generous reading, that they are particularly cautious--probably too much so--and wanted to see changes in gay marriage be a bottom up, not top down (puns intended!).

PS - Not a lawyer or bouncer. So I don't know entirely what I'm saying above.

"Conservative: The constitution doesn't say you can do that.
Liberal: The constitution doesn't say you can't do that."

*****
All the makings of a classic argument.

There's plenty, and mean PLENTY of that to be had elsewhere.

Well now that gay people are able to get married, he will indeed be forced to suck it, every night while wearing a pink tutu and magenta eye shadow.

Because that's what they said would happen.

Magenta??

I don't expect him to select a muted colour like teal or sierra, he is a flamboyant man and would definitely go with magenta or possibly even a hot pink. Or depending on his partner's apparel could even go for a chartreuse.

I'm pretty sure Supreme Court justices share the standard politician's lack of rights to their celebrity, meaning one of poeTV's ten million starving game programmers could, theoretically, write a game called Super Scalia Sucks A Million Cocks-eo Brothers that would be outside of copyright claims.

This. Make this happen.

Awww. And he was doing so well recently, too.

"The purpose of education is so that instead of crying until a woman puts her breast in our mouth, we can talk her into it."

Meerkat, how is that worse??

That is a classic Clarence Thomas zinger, baby!

Don't worry. I have a feeling PoETV will be full of that today.

Then there's this little internet aspect of this:
http://gawker.com/all-of-twitter-is-celebrating-something-call ed-marriag-1714183620

Just the reflexes of a dying animal.

Another parade of Armageddon-speak and how "Revelations called it" about to start!

IT WAS YOU ALL ALONG YOU BIG GAYS! YOU BLEW IT UP!

In all seriousness I'm surprised this didn't give Fisher a brain aneurism. You can get those from all sorts of stress or anxiety. Oh well.. Big Gays 0 Brian Fisher 1..

Fishers type will be ecstatic about this.

Their ratings will shoot up, and they can put out yet another whiney "Christians Are Victims" book.

I have the Fischer clip in the hopper. It is beautiful to behold.

Anything from Orson Scott Card yet?

I'm afraid to read what Orson Scott Card and Doug TenNapel have to say.

It always sucks when you find out people who make stuff you love have views you detest.

The fischer clip kinda reinforces my view of his type.

He's not outraged or distraught in a noticeable way, he's just reading off a speech of talking points and bumperstickerisms to the choir

>> It always sucks when you find out people who make stuff you love have views you detest.

That's why you have to learn tolerance and open-mindedness!

Either that, or give up and start stockpiling ammo, because if the conservative response is going to be anything like the leftist response, America is about to go Sarajevo.

You're absolutely right EH. I would never dream of stopping those guys from holding their views, nor do I stop buying things I like/boycott stuff just because someone says something I don't like. It's just disappointing.

People have all sorts of absurd and stupid ideas, that's what makes us all so different and wonderful. Absurd and stupid ideas can produce great art and great tragedy.

What surprised me is that West Virginia (where I live) wasn't one of the holdouts. The governor just issued an executive order one day and that was that.

Did CWC type that?

Damn straight! He posted it to Facebook within an hour of the news breaking.

He's my most favorite social critic by a wide margin.

I would totally be a woman trapped in a man's body if it meant lesbians would let me hump them. They can't be bull dyke type lesbians though, because I think I'm more of a bull dyke lesbian trapped in a man's body so I would be looking for the more feminine type lesbian.

One that likes cocks.

Personally, my preferred type of lesbian is the lipstick tomboy, someone who looks a bit punk rock but is still super cute in a traditional sense. Think Tank Girl or 1980s Jane Wiedlin.

Surely, there must be some lesbians who reject the lesbian community's cisqueer relationship norms. It is not unreasonable to support the rights of transgressive lesbians who queer the mononary by enjoying cock... such as maybe my own, why not?

Sure you can get married! We just have to do a ultrasound of your butt by inserting this here wand, and give you some information about how dangerous the gay lifestyle is.

And it's ashtar for the win.

Close enough - I'm expecting that suddenly "fraudulent marriage for tax purposes" will be the new "electoral fraud", forcing governors to institute a system of government checks that a marriage is legit by having a (totally appointed) commission check each marriage claim for validity and require public presentation of all personal documents for cases which seem "suspicious" or some other bullshit like that. Expect multiple years of moving goalposts to prove love and shit like that if couples don't have the right set of genitals.

They already do shit like that for people marrying foreign nationals, so I'm expecting the same from red states who still want to be on the wrong side of history.