Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 6/26/15

Love Conquers All

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   2 comments
Message Kathy Malloy
Become a Fan
  (55 fans)

Reprinted from Mike Malloy Website

Same Sex Marriage blushing brides
Same Sex Marriage blushing brides
(Image by SFBart in Palm Springs)
  Details   DMCA

Pop the champagne and toss the rice, Truthseekers, the lovers won victory over the haters! At long last, marriage equality is a reality in these United States. The Supreme Court announced the 5-4 decision today, which declares that any attempt to bar same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional. Legal rights for gay couples, it's about damn time.

This announcement follows yesterday's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, making this a heck of a one-two blow to the Neocons who seek to deny US citizens the benefits of healthcare and legal marriage.

What a surprise this Roberts' court is turning out to be for the knuckle-draggers, eh? It's reminiscent of the Burger court of the 1970's, which shocked the socks off the Rapture Righties of that era with the Roe v Wade decision, among others. That said, Roberts himself wrote a scathing, semi-hysterical dissent to the majority decision, as the Washington Pos t details:

"More ink was spilled dissenting today's Supreme Court marriage equality decision than the majority's opinion required. There were four different dissents, one by Chief Justice John Roberts (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas), plus separate dissents from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

"The opinions are rife with criticism for the majority, including claims that they have upended the reputation of the Court, paranoia about the consequences for religious objectors, and a rejection of the idea that the benefits of marriage even constitute a liberty. Here's a look at some of the most hysterical reactions from the dissenting justices.

"Roberts: No court should ever care about this issue.

"Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise neither force nor will but merely judgment.

"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens -- through the democratic process -- to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. ["]

"Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they 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. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

"The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial 'caution' and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own 'new insight' into the 'nature of injustice.' 'As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?'"

The Aztecs? They also ripped the hearts out of human sacrifices to appease their Gods, is this really the best example of honoring marriage Roberts could devise? Doesn't Roberts realize that marriage, from an anthropological standpoint as he describes, has to do with guaranteeing paternity, inheritance rights, and establishing familial wealth? In no way does the ability of gay couples to enter into a legal marriage contract undermine or threaten the rights of heterosexual couples to do the same.

Ah well, it gives the GOP presidential hopefuls fresh meat to lather over as election season continues. They will soon be vying for the total of "most anti-gay candidate" on the Sunday talk shows.

I'll pop the popcorn . ...

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Kathy Malloy Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Kathy never expected a career in radio as a talk show producer. Born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia, Kathy was completing her nursing degree when in 2001 - in an emergency - she was asked to fill in as the producer of Mike's program. Within a few (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Saving Earth

Brain Damage...

March of the Mysogynists

Crooked Hillary

Insult to Injury

The Grinch Who Stole Health Reform

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend