A bit of gaysplaining for Chief Justice Roberts . . .

[markpkessinger]

The Chief Justice says LGBT people have "lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause." Um, okay . . I guess I have to do a bit of gaysplaining for you, Mr. Chief Justice . .

I know this may come as a shock to you, Justice Roberts, but I think I can safely speak for most LGBT folks when I say that for most of us, our world stopped revolving around giving a shit whether or not straight people 'accept' us or not. If they do, terrific, if they don't, oh well. And most of us learned a long time ago that the only people we can persuade about anything are those who are willing to be persuaded. And if it's all the same to you, most of us would prefer to enjoy the rights to which we are entitled now, rather than at some future, unspecified date when straight society has become secure enough, and is feeling magnanimous enough, to deign to treat us as fellow citizens of equal standing.

Your concern is duly noted, however.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Very well said. The only thing I would add: Justice Roberts, you can go fuck yourself. There, now it's perfect.

[markpkessinger]

2. Indeed!

[Lochloosa]

6. But wouldn't that make him gay?

I'm so confused.

[NYC Liberal]

11. Well...

[valerief]

15. Oh, no. Now he'll want to marry himself, and this ruling means he can, right?

And, per Fox, three people can marry each other. Also, I'm sure Santorum is praying away the folks who want to marry dogs.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Hadn't thought of that! LMFAO! Good one!

[Ms. Toad]

3. Aside from which, the dramatic progress

was imposed in individual states in the same way it will now be imposed nationally.

Because we can marry, we will be more visible. In those states that were stomping their feet, people will now become more aware that they actually know and love gay people. And just like every state where marriage was imposed by a state court, we will win true acceptance by being more visible as their neighbors, children, parents, etc. The decision didn't stop that process - it accelerated it.

[sadoldgirl]

4. Don't get me wrong, but

I understand his view that all states should have
supported gay marriage. However, Mr. Supreme
Court Justice in that case we could have waited
for school desegregation until when, Please?

In addition, Sir, would your supporting voice to
make it a 6:3 vote not have helped? And lastly
do you also ignore the 9th amendment in the
Bill of rights or is it just an ink blot for you?!

[MADem]

5. His hot-breathed insistence that this new law is somehow a bad thing is curious.

Sour grapes?

Such strange and unreasonable anger.


He found himself in the minority. It happens. He'd better get used to it.

[Skittles]

7. not sure which is worse

that remark, or "Ask the nearest hippie." They both go beyond anything even The Onion would dream up.

[Beartracks]

18. "Ask the nearest hippie"??? So Scalia is Bill O'Reilly now?

How sad it is when one of the United States' Supreme Court Justices is just another opinionated blowhole instead of being a legal scholar of ethical character.

=================

[Skittles]

19. Scalia has been an opinionated blowhole for a long, long time

he is garbage

[Mister Ed]

8. What can be awarded by popular vote can be snatched away again by popular vote.

I am glad that no one ever had the gall to tell me I must "persuade" my fellow citizens to allow me to marry Mrs. Ed.

Instead, the court has affirmed that I have a right to marry, that all others have that same right, and that our right is not subject to the whim of popular opinion.

[shaayecanaan]

10. What can be awarded by judicial fiat can be taken away by judicial fiat

Abortion was legalised in most countries the old-fashioned way: people lobbied, voters were swayed, and ultimately governments didn't really like putting obstetricians in jail anyway, even on the very rare occasions when twelve jurors would unanimously agree to allow them to do that.

Which is not to say I don't support the decision. However, its worth noting that outside of the United States, no serious political party argues in favour of re-criminalising abortion.

[Mister Ed]

21. My thinking was that the Supreme Court almost never revisits or overturns a precedent it has set.

Abortions is a good example. In Roe v. Wade, the court determined that abortion rights were protected by the Constitution. Since then, we've long had a conservative-dominated court, whose majority members think Roe v. Wade was a misguided decision, and who think abortion ought to be illegal. Nonetheless, all of them - even Scalia - consider the matter to be settled law, and have none are willing to revisit it and overturn it.

This means that LGBT folks can rest secure in the knowledge that their marriage rights, now affirmed by the court, will never be taken away again by future courts, future legislatures, or future referendums.

[SunSeeker]

9. Roberts didn't worry about Americans accepting it before declaring corporations "people" ...

...and proclaiming money to be "speech."

[Warpy]

26. Exactly

Fuck him and the judicial high horse he rode in on.

[Moonwalk]

12. Wow. Patronizing much, Mr. Chief Justice? However entitled to voice his judicial dissent....

...he is not entitled to make statements like this. How outrageously condescending and fucking insensitive to say such a thing to any minority who have, so wrongly, endured so much, for so long; what a terrible thing to say, as well, to those who have cared about this minority as family, as friends, or to those who've just cared about our country, and felt strongly that all citizens deserved to be treated equally. Men and women have lived and died to achieve this. How. Dare. He.

When and if he ever lives in the shoes of the disenfranchised, having his legal rights taken away, forced to endure injustice, forced to fight and suffer and wait till the majority accepts him before he gets them back...then he'll be entitled to say something as obnoxious as this.

I am ashamed, deeply and horribly ashamed, that our Chief Justice would say such a thing. This man, knowing he is the leader of the highest court in the land and a representative of this country, should know better. I imagine that many in the legal profession, judges, lawyers, etc., are wincing in pain and mortification over this, and that he'll find that he's lost a great deal of respect. As for me, I feel nothing but distain.

[Enthusiast]

13. Kicked and recommended!

[AnnetteJacobs]

14. Um, say what?

"lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause."

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me the polls are showing an overwhelming majority of Americans now already agree with their cause.

[Volaris]

17. yeah...the point of his horrid little attempt at ConcernTrolling was that in his opinion,

(since your're correct in what the polls all show) it should never have been a matter for the court. Rather, put it to a vote of the people, and then seek an amendment to the constitution. If the people all agree with you , it should be no problem. Right?

except for that part where he forgot about INELIABLE Rights not being subject to the approval of the fucking MOB.

[Ed Suspicious]

16. For what it's worth this straight person accepts you and also accepts that you couldn't care much

less. Point is Roberts isn't recognizing that decent straights already have been persuaded that bigoted homophobes are and always have been wrong.

[Betty Karlson]

20. Great rebuttal.

Thank you for posting this.

[Utopian Leftist]

22. Considering that there are still 33 states

in which LGBTQ people have inadequate protection in employment and housing, I'd say Chief Justice Roberts should consider our best efforts at "persuasion" to have been unfortunately futile. That is why LAW exists in the first place . . . so we don't have to waste our lives attempting to PERSUADE our fucking neighbors to do the right fucking thing, and treat us like human beings!

[Oilwellian]

23. K&R n/t

[JudyM]

24. I defy him to show me one lgbt who isn't thrilled right now.

We're not bemoaning anything except right-wingers' outright or, as here, thinly veiled continued disparagement. Respect for the rule of law my ass. As usual.

[treestar]

25. That opinion has several non-legal comments in it

He could simply say why he thinks the legal conclusion should be what he thinks and then stop. It's unprofessional sounding.