Open Thread

I was all over town today, and I flaunted my shit. I shook my money maker, had a spring in my step, and actually smiled when I talked to people.

And yet not one fucking person tried to gay marry me today. I would have said no, but you know, in our newly gayified nation, I thought my options would expand a bit and I would at least be the one to say no, not happening.

FML. Guess I need to work out and get better clothes.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit
180 replies
  1. PsiFighter37 says:

    I’m a bit worried to ask what ‘shaking your money maker’ means. Is that a West Virginian thing? I’ve never heard that before Cole wrote those words.

  2. mai naem says:

    @Lolis: Don’t even joke about that. Apparently some group out of Utah is going to the courts to make polygamy legal.

    John, maybe you should fly out to the SF this weekend since its Pride Weekend. I’m sure you’ll at least get some drunk gay marriage proposals.

  3. Yatsuno says:

    @PsiFighter37: I’m trying to work here. I do NOT need to be distracted by images of JC shaking his money maker. Google it if you dare.

    Might be moving soon, more details coming this weekend.

  4. Cassidy says:

    I had an IRS Agent show up at my door this morning. After tightening up his jackboots and them making sure his ATF buddies were squared away, jackboots and all, was informed that I needed to be gay married by the end of August, preferably when I renew my tags, or I’d have to go to a FEMA re-education camp.

  5. NickT says:

    @Lolis:

    T&H marrying anyone would involve double bestiality, bigamy and bigotgamy. It’s the ultimate marital shit sundae with a raddled cherry on the top.

  6. Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Smoke a few dicks, pull a train, take a spin as a drag queen, write a book and use the proceeds to buy a farmhouse in upstate NY with a cute advertising executive.

  7. NickT says:

    @Yatsuno:

    Everyone knows that Tunch is the money maker round here. John Cole is just bragging on his mighty forearms when he talks about shaking the white cat-mountain.

  8. forked tongue says:

    Well, if I may say so, you do need to work out and get better clothes. Gay marrying aside.

  9. Jim Kakalios says:

    What was it the Dad in Sh!t my Dad Says, said when his son was concerned about getting hit on by a gay person? Along the lines of: They’re gay. They’re not blind!

    John, you magnificent bastard – I read your blog!

  10. lamh35 says:

    So Cole did you shake your money make the old skool way or the new skool way, I’m betting even money on old skool, but what I wouldn’t pay to see you actually attemping ole skool money making shaking…lol.

    ETA: Good lord I hope some of ya’ll are kiddin’ about not knowing what “shake your money maker mean”

  11. SiubhanDuinne says:

    Guess I need to work out and get better clothes.

    No. Dont change a thing. You are festive and fabulous just as you are.

  12. eemom says:

    Well, don’t quote me on this, but I THINK you have to be in a hetero marriage first in order to be sniffed out as bait by the marauding gaymarrying hordes.

    Fuckhead, for instance, is probly boarding up the house like Night of the Living Dead….

  13. Comrade Dread says:

    Wait. I thought President Obama was going to assign me a gay husband and assign my wife a lesbian partner… oh man, it’s like this SSM thing doesn’t affect me at all.

  14. Anne Laurie says:

    @Yatsuno:

    Farmhouse should be in Vermont. For moar hipsterness.

    But — if you want to be written up in the NYTimes’ Style section — it’s easier to commute to NYC from Dutchess County, or the Berkshires. Only Martha Stewart and top-level FIRE executives can afford a spread in Darien these days!

  15. NickT says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    You need to pick up your Obamaphone first, then you get the call assigning you to a gay marriage with a Cadillac-driving welfare queen. Didn’t they tell you anything at Party headquarters?

  16. burnspbesq says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    Wait. I thought President Obama was going to assign me a gay husband and assign my wife a lesbian partner… oh man, it’s like this SSM thing doesn’t affect me at all.

    Patience. They have to publish the regulations in proposed form in the Federal Register and allow 60 days for comment before they finalize them. You’ll have your gay hubby before the Steelers are eliminated from playoff consideration.

  17. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    How exactly are you able to type to the Internet, when your country has been drowned beneath the ocean, as we were assured would happen if you gay-married. Are you tapping a submarine cable or something as you writh in God-fearing regret for your decadent folly?

  18. Boudica says:

    Meanwhile, here in Texas, I got a letter today from the Dept of Public Safety. It’s time to renew my driver’s license and I have to bring my Social Security card, passport or birth certificate, and car registration to prove my citizenship, identity, and residency. Oh, and if I don’t have my SS card, I can use my college transcript….because I have that just lying around.
    They wasted no time getting that in the mail after the Supremes’ decision.

  19. SiubhanDuinne says:

    O/T, but is Comrade Mary or RedKitten or any other Canuckistani around? If so, can you shed any light on allegations that the Harper government have officially removed Section 13 (the “hate speech” provision) from the Human Rights Act? Can they do that, just.like.that? I’ll do some digging but would be grateful for informed views from north of the 49th.

  20. Cassidy says:

    Well, I do t care if I’m forced to gay marry or not. The wife and I could use some help with the kids. I’m still not buying skinny jeans.

    @Yatsuno: Well, then, come on in.

  21. seaboogie says:

    @forked tongue: Not if he’s going for the full Marcellus Wallace experience. And given that we didn’t know what Cole looked like for a long time, that makes this doubly apt:
    http://vimeo.com/64695312 It’s text only, and not THAT scene – totally safe for work – except for the Tarantino language.

  22. SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    a spread in Darien

    Or like stout John Cole, when with eagle eyes  
      He stared at Appalachia–and all his men  
    Look’d at each other with a wild surmise—  
      Silent, upon a spread in Darien..
     

  23. lamh35 says:

    Saw this earlier today and meant to post it, but I forgot.

    f Barney Frank Could Have Settled One Case, He’d Have Taken Up VRA, Not Prop 8

    Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said Thursday that if he had been empowered to decide one Supreme Court decision this week, he would have taken up the case on the 1965 Voting Rights Act and not the case on California’s statewide ban on same-sex marriage…
    Frank, who was the first sitting member of Congress to voluntarily come out of the closet, indicated that the “terrible decision killing the Voting Rights Act” carries more urgency than the marriage equality case.

    “Racial discrimination has been much worse [than discrimination against gays and lesbians] in this country and if I could have frankly picked one decision this week, I’ll be honest, it wouldn’t have been the gay marriage one,” Frank said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I wish I could have reversed that terrible decision killing the Voting Rights Act because I think there are still serious issues there in democracy.”..

    He did said that the DOMA decision was a “major breakthrough”

  24. Felonius Monk says:

    I flaunted my shit. I shook my money maker

    Jeez, Cole. You’re not on another of your bourbon fueled missions to raise hell again, are you?

  25. NickT says:

    @Felonius Monk:

    When he’s tried distributing free porn to the neighborhood and Tunch has failed to drag any interesting young morsels back to the man cave, what else can Cole do?

  26. Violet says:

    Guess I need to work out and get better clothes.

    Didn’t we settle the clothes thing when you previewed your wardrobe for us when you went to the Democratic Convention last summer? Yes. Better clothes. And just say no to the horizontal stripes.

  27. Suzanne says:

    “Shake your moneymaker” = shake your ass.

    Good Lord. Were you all raised by WOLVES?

    Kitty baby is still lethargic, but is at least trembling less.

  28. Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    @lamh35: I don’t get the hypothetical. I support the sentiment, but the situation makes no sense. If both VRA and DOMA were decided the same way, I do believe him that he would rather reverse The VRA decision. But since they were not, of course he would want to reverse the decision he did not like. I don’t think this was an either or situation for the court. They could have decided for both or against both. It’s like he’s implying that VRA lost because DOMA won. I don’t think the cases were linked that way.

  29. YellowJournalism says:

    I shook my money maker, had a spring in my step,

    Maybe they just thought you needed a bathroom.

  30. NickT says:

    @Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound:

    I think it’s plausible to see the right-wingers on the court using the DOMA decision as cover for the VRA abomination. It lets the willfully gullible like Sullivan praise them for one while effectively ignoring the other.

  31. Felonius Monk says:

    @NickT: The visual image of Cole shakin’ his junk all over town gives me a headache. OTOH, it amazes me that he wasn’t arrested for reckless endangerment.

  32. 2liberal says:

    @Cassidy:

    I had an IRS Agent show up at my door this morning. After tightening up his jackboots and them making sure his ATF buddies were squared away, jackboots and all, was informed that I needed to be gay married by the end of August, preferably when I renew my tags, or I’d have to go to a FEMA re-education camp.

    what about your guns? what did they do with your guns?

  33. Bill E Pilgrim says:

    Every once in a while you realize that there are people on the Internet, not to mention in the world, who weren’t yet born during the punk era, let alone the 70s, the 60s, and so on. Nothing wrong with that of course except it scares the hell out of me.

    Shake Your Moneymaker” or “Shake Your Money Maker” is a song recorded by Elmore James in 1961 that has become a standard of the blues.[1]

  34. Ken_L says:

    Yeah but didn’t you notice all the married people having a sad about the way their marriage value had crashed?

  35. jayjaybear says:

    Twerk it, guuuurrrrrl!

    From what I’ve seen, you need to hang at bear events to really get to the true target demographic, Cole. Running after twinks isn’t gonna get a ring on it. Well, not THAT kind of ring, anyway…

  36. lamh35 says:

    @Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound: I don’t know, but I do think the decision was made to announce the gutting of VRA before announcing DOMA decision. I don’t think it’s cynical to believe that.

    What I think Barney was in reference to Prop 8, not DOMA. The court basically said the complaint didn’t have merit to be judged by SCOTUS, right. I’m think that what Barney is saying is that the court’s decision on VRA was the more important of the cases to actually bring up

  37. SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Morley Bolero:

    A year ago? So why are the Canucks on my Facebook feed going all splody tonight?

    O/T, and changing the subject, but WHOAH!! I’m as big a fan of Attitudinal Weather as anyone here, but there is some crazy Donner und Blitzen shit going on outside my window right now and it’s making me kind of snaky.

  38. mai naem says:

    @lamh35: I so totally agree with Barney Frank. The VRA essentially going down is going to make it that much harder to pass ENDA and that much easier to pass anti-gay legislation that will have to be taken to court to get challenged.

  39. Suzanne says:

    @Violet: I’m sore, and tired. Kitty is still very touch-and-go.

    My husband and I are getting hooked on that “Property Wars” show. Three houses are in our immediate area. We are feeling goooood about our property values.

  40. PsiFighter37 says:

    @Suzanne: Okay, I was pretty sure it was shaking the front of his body, which was just a really bad mental image overall. Basically reminded me of a traumatizing scene from Sascha Baron Cohen’s ‘Bruno’.

  41. Bill E Pilgrim says:

    Paul Butterfield is where I first heard it. Where I last heard it too I think. Live, in Larry Blake’s basement, Telegraph Ave.

  42. 👽 Martin says:

    @Mike in NC: Yep. #1 and #2 on Amazon. She’s #18 among all authors.

    So, to the self-publishers around here, looks like the key to success is to drop some n-bombs and make yourself a martyr to oppressed white people everywhere.

  43. mdblanche says:

    @NickT: I doubt there was any great conspiracy in the outcome of the votes. VRA and DOMA both went down because gay rights is one of the few, if not the only, areas where the conservative Kennedy really is a moderate. The timing may have been meant to use the DOMA decision to wipe out the taste of the VRA decision. But if that was the goal, from the reactions I’ve seen it failed.

  44. NickT says:

    @👽 Martin:

    I thought the key to her success was the relentless application of the three key nutritional elements of our national cuisine: butter, salt, and sugar.

  45. Baud says:

    @gnomedad:

    I still can’t believe that was inadvertent. Maybe their outside ad agency is full of gay people, and the anti-gays don’t realize it.

  46. Felonius Monk says:

    @NickT: Tunch needs to keep a tighter leash on his human. Probably has to follow him around with a plastic bag to clean up his messes.

  47. Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    @NickT: but how? I mean unless the people think the same judges were in the majority on both opinions. I guess that its possible to praise Alito and Scalia for their support of gay rights while castigating Sotomayer and Ginsberg for their casual lack of concern for VRA. But that doesn’t make much sense to me.

  48. NickT says:

    @Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound:

    How could anyone possibly think that Ginsburg wasn’t deeply unhappy about the VRA ruling? She wrote a 37 page dissent excoriating it in these words: “The Court’s opinion can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decision making. Quite the opposite. Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA.”

  49. MattR says:

    @gnomedad: And that is what happens when you are such dicks that your children hate you. They tell you that your slogan is totally cool and that all the young kids will love it.

  50. gnomedad says:

    @Baud:

    I still can’t believe that was inadvertent. Maybe their outside ad agency is full of gay people, and the anti-gays don’t realize it.

    I’m tempted to believe your theory. Other than the absurdity of the logo, there’s not one hint that the site is a parody, but wow.

  51. BGinCHI says:

    Cole, were you wearing Wrangler jeans when you did this?

    And were you also wearing a denim shirt?

    Wait. The judges inform me that in WV this is gayceptible.

    Never mind.

  52. eemom says:

    @NickT:

    I think it’s plausible to see the right-wingers on the court using the DOMA decision as cover for the VRA abomination. It lets the willfully gullible like Sullivan praise them for one while effectively ignoring the other.

    In the name of all the fucks, PLEASE get over the idea that the SCt justices would ever in a million years think like this.

    These guys are in for life. Whatever is motivating them to do what they’re doing, giving a gazillionth of a nanofuck about how it’s gonna be received in the emmessemm is NOT on the list.

  53. catclub says:

    @lamh35: I agree, and NPR seems to be spending hours discussing the new reality of the DOMA decision and has already forgotten about the important case. grrrrr

  54. eemom says:

    ….also too, as I’ve been trying to explain, the insidious states rights bullshit at the core of both decisions is far from inconsistent.

    And which is why the celebration over DOMA is way, WAY premature. And —

    oh fuck it, why bother.

  55. BGinCHI says:

    @eemom: So you agree with Posner? I was amazed at how aggressive he was in shredding that decision based on fantasy states’ rights. He’s cranky but that was a provocative take….

  56. catclub says:

    @BGinCHI: Be sure to read Ginsburgs dissent, if you have not. The majority decision was even worse than you can imagine. Completely ignored the real record of the 2006 renewal, showing that all the preclearance states should STILL be there.

  57. eemom says:

    @BGinCHI:

    Posner is likely the most arrogant asshole to ever put on a black robe, which is saying quite a lot — but yes, he was absolutely spot on in that piece.

  58. BGinCHI says:

    @catclub: Yeah, I get that, but that’s what’s so crazy about the states’ rights appeal: it’s a complete distraction (and a legally mistaken one) from the core issues.

    It’s both and.

  59. BGinCHI says:

    @eemom: More arrogant than Zorro?

    Wait, black cape. Sorry.

    Kid at the playground with a sparkly blue cape on today. I complimented him and he thanked me like obviously it was the coolest thing and what the fuck was I on about.

    Kids these days.

  60. SatanicPanic says:

    @BGinCHI: That’s why I don’t get the DOMA ruling- it’s unconstitutional, therefore we have to leave it up to the states, who are, what? Not subject to the Constitution? IANAL so anyone feel free to yell at me if I am not understanding that.

  61. BGinCHI says:

    @SatanicPanic: Right. How can they make a law that is unconstitutional? Or that contravenes federal law? I suppose if for the latter there was a federal law that made marriage a union between two people or something then that would carry to the states.

    Where’s Burns when you kind of need him?

  62. Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Lolis: @NickT:

    No, no no, Cole’s too old for T&H. Timmeh thinks that older men should be educating boys on their sexuality. You had to be there for that Sandusky thread to believe the lengths to which he went in defending that rapist. He’d have you believe that straight kids all get older hands-on mentors, and so should gay kids.

  63. catclub says:

    @SatanicPanic: DOMA, which is a federal law, was ruled unconstitutional. But the decision did not address what the states are doing. The ruling left deciding how marriages are determined up to the states – states rights. DOMA broke that by saying the states cannot decide how marital status is determined for federal benefits. It did not address equal protection problems of HOW states define marriage.

    The problems will come when Texas recognizes marriages from MASS between opposite sex partners, but not same sex partners, but both are valid in MASS. Texas will then decide that it recognizes NO marriages from MASS. Then the fun will really start. State by state nullification. MASS will then recognize no marriages from Texas.

  64. scav says:

    @BGinCHI: So this year it’s sparkly blue capes on Chicago playgrounds? Year or two ago it was a matte blue one out in Evanston. Can’t decide if it’s the superior nature of your / our neighborhood v. suburbs or the simple passage of time. What are they sporting in Lakeview? Any live reports?

  65. BGinCHI says:

    @scav: Lakeview, sadly, has no capes. Just Coach bags and those boat shoes from the 80s in tiny sizes. And also drunks and idiots, though there are exceptions.

    I do think I saw a kid in a sparkly cape at Brothers K.

  66. BGinCHI says:

    @catclub: Saw a Mercedes in my hood today (a nice one) with Texas plates and I was sorely tempted to knock on the window and say hey, get off my fucking streets. If you don’t believe in Taxes go back to Texas and drive around, dickhead.

    You can’t spell Taxes without Texas. Literally.

  67. SatanicPanic says:

    @catclub: How does the decision not apply to the states? You know what I mean- I thought the Constitution was the law of the land, so isn’t what the states are doing unconstitutional too? I don’t get it

  68. Ash Can says:

    Whatever happened to Lady Friend? Doesn’t she have anything to say about all this gay marryin’?*

    *Besides, “Ooh, can I watch?”

  69. NickT says:

    @eemom:

    What makes me laugh is your pathetic pretence to know anything on this topic. The Supremes have made it abundantly clear over the years that they do care about what the MSM thinks. They do so for a very good reason – the MSM is what drives the overwhelming bulk of how the public sees SCOTUS decisions. These people – especially the right wing apparatchiks like Scalia – are doing their utmost to advance their political agendas. The MSM matters to them for that reason, not reasons of personal vanity. I realize that you are a particularly incompetent buffoon, but even a simpleton like you should have been able to put the pieces together on this one. You may now return to your employment as Peggy Noonan’s ghostwriter.

  70. Ash Can says:

    @Ken_L:

    Yeah but didn’t you notice all the married people having a sad about the way their marriage value had crashed?

    Yikes! Good thing I invested in bonds instead.

  71. rda909 says:

    You went all over town today and flaunted Newsmax? Promoting their lies is the ONLY way to make money on the Internet…yes siree! There are clearly no other alternatives for Internet ads other than Newsmax. Hey everyone, feverishly click those Newsmax headlines tonight like there’s no tomorrow, and maybe, just maybe, he’ll be able to buy himself some new clothes…well, new socks at least…on the clearance rack…at TJ Maxx…oh okay, at Goodwill. C’mon, we do this!!!

  72. Suzanne says:

    @BGinCHI: I saw a dude in a giant extended-cab fuck-you truck with a Texas plate park diagonally across two spots today. Then he got out of his petroleum-annihilating device and purposely walked in behind my car as I was backing out. If I had been feeling spun kier, I would have coughed on his door handles.

  73. scav says:

    @SatanicPanic: I’m pretty sure that the states rights issue was that DOMA meant the Federal government was not recognizing the States decisions as to who was married or not. Now, Federal recognition of marriages mirrors the decisions taken by individual states — although my mind gets a little numb trying to figure out what happens to a SSM couple that move to a state that doesn’t recognize it. They’re not recognized as married in their new state, but are they still married in the eyes of the Feds?

  74. BGinCHI says:

    @Suzanne: You gotta carry some old, old meat in your trunk. You push that in through the grille on to the radiator and you have stinky success.

    Or, needle nose pliers: remove valve stems.

  75. catclub says:

    @SatanicPanic: DOMA said that the federal government would not recognize some marriages that were legal in the states (eg MASS), so the federal government was breaking equal protection and inserting itself into the definition of marriage by the states. Ending DOMA means that the federal government will recognize those legal marriages, and ITS equal protection error is fixed, relative to legally married people. The decision does not address the OTHER equal protection problem: that state laws discriminate. To be continued….

    ETA: Or what scav said.

  76. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    @NickT:

    Hmm “tapping a submarine cable” sounds terribly suggestive.

    How exactly do you think Cthulhu accesses net pron? You didn’t think all that Japanese tentacle stuff was being consumed by human beings, did you?

  77. Citizen_X says:

    @Suzanne:

    he got out of his petroleum-annihilating device and purposely walked in behind my car as I was backing out. If I had been feeling spun kier, I would have

    run him right the fuck over. “Oops! Sorry!”

  78. FlipYrWhig says:

    @catclub: But if Texas doesn’t recognize Massachusetts marriages as valid, that goes in a weird direction. Straight couple moves from Boston to Austin. What do they do to establish that they’re married? Or are they just strangers in the eyes of the law now, no survivor benefits, no shared health insurance, nothing? Surely that can’t work. But what’s the alternative? You have to submit paperwork establishing that you were straight-married in another state, so that will be OK, but if the couple’s gay married friends do the same thing, they file their paperwork, and the Texas government rejects it? That’s a lot of bureaucracy for no good reason, isn’t it?

  79. eemom says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Thank you for exemplifying the difference between an intelligent question from a nonlawyer and a kindergartner like Nick TeePee looking at a picture of the Supreme Court in his I Can Read book and throwing spitballs at the teacher when she put him in time out for playing with his weewee under the desk.

    The thing that I found most troubling about the DOMA decision is exactly what you’re focusing on — that it blurred the line between the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and the “right” of the state to define marriage. The Court held that DOMA infringed the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights — but only because they happened to live in a state that happened to decide that gay married couples were entitled to the same dignity and benefits of that institution as straight married couples.

    What was beneath the lines appalling about the decision, imo, was its very careful avoidance of any suggestion that gay married couples who do NOT live in such states have any such equal rights.

  80. eemom says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Forgotten — are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting it will not be pounced upon and cited in any manner of contexts — and as long as the current composition of the Court remains what it is, that it won’t be built upon to do more evil??

  81. FlipYrWhig says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: @burnspbesq: Or else everyone who moves to a state intent on picking and choosing what marriages are valid will have to have one of those INS interviews to make sure that they’re really-really married and not just faking it. You know, small government!

  82. ruemara says:

    DOMA=/=Prop 8 decision. the VRA was essentially a gutting of VRA through knocking out section 4. The Prop 8 decision was a no standing punt. DOMA was passed only as an extension of state’s rights, and was not what Frank mentioned.
    That being said, I would say I’d totally gay marry you, but I wouldn’t. I’m gay marrying Tilda Swinton and Keanu Reeves.

    Suzanne, I’m so sorry. My cat Butter managed to do the same thing drinking something. I’m sending out some healthy kitty vibes.

  83. SatanicPanic says:

    @eemom: Thanks! I think I get it now- the states were not being treated equally by DOMA therefore it’s bad. I’m a little less pleased at the ruling based on how they got there.

  84. Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    Alvarado said his country “unilaterally and irrevocably renounces those trade preferences” and defiantly quipped that Ecuador would provide $23 million to the Obama administration for human rights training.

    I’ll pass on that training. He probably should send election observers instead.

  85. gmann says:

    JC welcome to the new world order. You now can be turned down 100% of all humans (Rand Paul is work for additions aka the dog and pony show) where as you could be married to girl units, you only had 46 to 48% of the population who could “shut you down”. . .

  86. Suzanne says:

    @ruemara: Thanks. My poor husband feels so guilty, but neither of us would ever have guessed that she would do this. She doesn’t even try to steal people food, so I have no idea why she thought paint water would be preferable.

  87. eemom says:

    @burnspbesq:

    From your link:

    If what matters is whether a law expresses that same sex couples are inferior, it seems to me a relatively small step to conclude that state laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples should also be found unconstitutional.

    Um, yeah…..and if I lived in a zero gravity world, it would be a “relatively small step” over the abyss to the other side.

  88. eemom says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Not exactly. It’s more like, DOMA is bad because it won’t let states treat gay married couples equally if they want to. But it’s perfectly fine for states to treat gay married couples like shit if they want to.

  89. Mandalay says:

    I’ve been ranting for a while about how parents are not being charged if really bad things happen when their kids get hold of a gun in the home. Often the rationale for no charges being filed is that “it was just a freak accident” or “the parents have suffered enough already”.

    Well now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, and way too far: The Mother of the New Orleans Girl Who Shot Herself Will Face Murder Charges

    The mother is facing the possibility of “life imprisonment at hard labor with no chance of parole” FFS.

    Care to guess the skin color of the mother?

  90. FlipYrWhig says:

    @eemom: IANAL of course, but isn’t that just going to have to be the subject of another court case? It just wasn’t before the court this time around, so the opinion focused on why it was wrong to treat a legal same-sex marriage as illegitimate. Some future case will have to be about the wrongness of being a same-sex couple blocked from marriage. No?

  91. eemom says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Yes. Absolutely right.

    Where I guess I differ with burnsy, is how easy it’s going to be for that future case to come out the right way.

    And that, comes down to the same bottom line as everything else: elections and their consequences; who votes, and who doesn’t. That’s going to determine who replaces the aging SCt Justices, and also, what laws go up to them for review.

    It’s all about the vote, all and always about the vote, all the time.

  92. Redshift says:

    @FlipYrWhig: And it’s especially problematic since there’s long precedent of states recognizing marriages between people who wouldn’t be able to get married there but who got married in other states (differences in age of consent, first cousins, not to mention waiting periods, etc.)

    The only counterexample I can think of is states that prohibited interracial marriage. Not a good sign for the laws remaining standing for long.

  93. Jebediah says:

    @2liberal:

    what about your guns? what did they do with your guns?

    I’ll bet they said that would have to be a separate visit to get one’s guns took. Damn inefishunt gubmint.

  94. Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jebediah: Gun-taking is a different department and a different union.

    @Trinity: I am pretty sure that is still illegal in all 50 states. And a good thing too.

  95. Ramalama says:

    In other news today, DOMA caused a panic in the toaster oven market with supplies unable to meet demands.

    Asked to comment, Ellen Degeneres said, “I don’t think I can take it any more. Too many conversions, not nearly enough stock. Maybe Communist China can kick in til we get up to speed?”

  96. Jim Kakalios says:

    @slag: Much thanks! Yes, I have in fact thought about it from time to time. Would need the right partners, obviously. And some free time.

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Physics Professor,

    Jim

  97. gelfling545 says:

    @mai naem: I really, really don’t like the idea of polygamy but if everyone involved is of age, capable of consent and there is no coercion I can’t see how it’s my business or the government’s except as far as enforcement of the legal responsibilities of the parties.

  98. Susanne says:

    Alas. Keep trying. But, if any RWNJs come by, hide Lily and Rosie (I believe the mighty hunter Tunch can take care of himself). The RWNJ community seem to be pretty obsessed with screwing the pooch.

Comments are closed.