Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Friday, June 26, 2015



Ducky's here said...

"Antonin Scalia Dissent: I Give Up, Do Whatever You Want"

Suck it up, Tony.

skudrunner said...

Thankfully we can put this behind us and move-on. There are so many difficulties that face the American people that agonizing about gay marriage and if obamacare will stay seems trivial.
We need to focus on what really matters like what maturity outfit Kim will wear or what is BHO's golf handicap.
If anyone thought Obamacare was going to be repealed and gay marriage was not going to be upheld they were delusional. Never put issues like these up for a vote because one side will be very disappointed.

Infidel753 said...

Yes!!!!! At last. What Massachusetts started 11 years ago is finally completed.

This is a time for celebration. Yes, the fundies will be as agitated as a rabid pit bull with its nuts caught in a mousetrap, but frankly that's just icing on the cake.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Thankfully we can put this behind us and move-on. There are so many difficulties that face the American people that agonizing about gay marriage and if obamacare will stay seems trivial."

Only an unabashed cynic would write that equality under the law (in this case marriage equality) and the ability of Americans to buy affordable health care are "trivial." That's why people who think like that will become more and more irrelevant and ignored. The cynicism in that thinking is antithetical to our American way of life.

skud: "If anyone thought Obamacare was going to be repealed and gay marriage was not going to be upheld they were delusional. Never put issues like these up for a vote because one side will be very disappointed."

Those issues were not put to vote yesterday and today. The SCOTUS gave out an ruling which interpreted both issues. These two ruling are disturbing to people who don't like equality and who don't believe access to affordable health insurance are American values.

Cynics like skudrunner whine, piss and moan and assign fake motives to outcomes they disagree with.

We liberals have had to suck up Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

I suggest you and your pals do the same in this instance.

Win some; lose some. Time for you and your friends to grow up and learn that lesson.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ducky, good advice for the Supreme Court's metaphorical ka-ka in the punch bowl.

Infidel, "Yes, the fundies will be as agitated as a rabid pit bull with its nuts caught in a mousetrap, but frankly that's just icing on the cake."

I hope it's okay on this day to indulge in some schadenfreude.

Ann, feel free to Happy Dance all day!

Ray Cranston said...

Any day that pisses off the Haters is a good day in America.

The hateful Confederate flag = loswr
People who hate the LGBT community and are against equal rights for them = losers
Anti-Obamacare haters = losers

Ahab said...

WOOHOO! It's about time!

You should see Twitter right now. The Religious Right is livid over the Supreme Court decision. I couldn't be happier!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Woo-Hoo is right, Ahab! Everyone of good will is happy today!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Tony Perkins (who associated himself with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist, white supremacist organization) said, “the courts will not have the final say on this profound social matter. The American people will stand up for their right to have a voice and a vote.”

Perkins wants people to vote for or against other people's civil rights?

Imagine if white southerner, in the 1950s and 1960s, held a vote on whether or not to allow southern blacks to attend their tax-supported state schools or their right to vote. Does anyone really think the white southerners would have given southern blacks their civil rights?

Gay marriage does not degrade hetero marriage. We've had marriage equality in Massachusetts since 2004. Massachusetts also has one of the lowest, if not THE lowest, rates of divorce in the country. Gay marriage has not been detrimental to hetero marriage. Perkins and his ilk want to impose their religious-based prejudice on the LGBT community, not protect hetero marriage. Hetero marriage needs no protection. If they believed it did, they'd be marching in the streets against divorce.

Ducky's here said...


Everyone can enter into the civil contract of marriage.

We are moving to make health insurance available to everyone.

I'll tell you, skud, if that means the republic is doomed then you live in a very
rarefied environment. Why not just look at it as progress towards realizing the promise
of American democracy?
Come on, time to be happy.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gov. Piyush Jindal said this: “...Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that."

Marriage in a secular society, like the U.S.A., can be performed without one mention of God or any gods. Period. Marriage is a contract conferred by the state in which it is performed, not by any cleric of any religious organization. Two people can be legally married without any involvement of religion.

In ancient times, marriages were nothing more than alliances between countries and city-states.

Here is more information on the history of marriage.

Jindal should do a bit more research before he shoots off his mouth.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

I feel left out. Where are my rights? What am I? Sashimi in your eyes?

If trans-gender people can have rights, and trans-racial people can have rights, how about trans-species people?

I want to marry my domestic partner, Ms. Naughty Nautilus, but Tony Perkins says we can't because he considers us an abomination. I consider him an abomination too ... just because he's not getting what I'm getting.

I demand civil rights for cephalopods. NOW!

Flying Junior said...

That is a very interesting piece, Shaw. Yet I might take it with a grain of salt.

(9.) About 250 years ago, love matches gained traction.

250 years ago would have been about the time when George Washington got married. It might be argued that it was a marriage with wealth and convenience first and foremost, yet it cannot be denied that it was a good marriage. Will we ever truly wish to marry purely for love and ignore all matters financial? First thing that serious couples ask each other today is how much debt they are carrying.

What about a happily married man like Johann Sebastian Bach? I really don't think that monogamy and even fidelity were uncommon in his day. Mozart and his Constanza Weber? Other than that, I don't profess to know very much about social studies before the eighteenth century.

Shaw Kenawe said...

And civil rights you and Ms. Naughty Nautilus shall have!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Johann Sebastian Bach had two wives and 20 children. In those days when having children often killed women, it wasn't unusual for men to have a series of wives.

Mozart married Constanze Weber, the sister of the woman he first had his eyes on, Aloysia Weber, when he lodged in Mrs. Weber's house in Vienna. Constanze was his second choice.

But yes, marriage and the reasons for marriage have changed over the centuries. I read that one of the Supremes worried that the right to polygamy could be argued as a right now that same-sex marriage has won. Well, polygamy is in the Bible, and the father of the Abrahamic religion had more than one wife. So people who use the Bible to justify many things could use the Bible to justify polygamy. It's in the Bible!

skudrunner said...

Ms. Shaw,

I have never had issues with gay marriage as you will see from any of my responses. What I was saying is far to much emphasis on both sides was put on this issue and there are other issues we need to face. Iran Nuke deal, ISIS, domestic terrorists. Obamacare, as bad as it is , is here to stay. So far it has cost taxpayers billions to provide minimal coverage for less than 5% of the population. At least my single son has maternity benefits as does my 70 year old sister.

Issues that affect all Americans should be voted on but since we are in the minority rules it won't be.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"What I was saying is far to much emphasis on both sides was put on this issue and there are other issues we need to face."

You feel that way because marriage equality doesn't affect you. That's rather selfish of you. We're a big country, and we can do more than one thing at a time.

Every single insurance policy premium figures in maternity costs. So your complaint makes no sense.

Marriage equality does NOT affect ALL Americans. It affects those who wish to be treated equally under the law and who wish to marry the person they love. Until today, that was not possible for millions of gay Americans.

You come off as an unhappy person who can't deal with change. Minority? Since when, in the history of this country, have white Christian males been a minority? Your demographic has been in charge since 1620. It's about time consideration is given to ALL Americans, not just your group.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

In today’s same-sex marriage decision, here is what Clarence Thomas said:

Human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

So discrimination and persecution are okay as long as you can cling tenaciously to your dignity. Economic exploitation and servitude are okay as long as you can cling tenaciously to your dignity. Inequality and injustice are okay as long as you can cling tenaciously to your dignity. In other words, your dignity matters more than your rights. Scratch the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas is breathtakingly callous and incompetent.

By the same reasoning, we should flog scud-the-crud with whips and chains to within an inch of his dignity.

Shaw Kenawe said...

definition of "dignity:" the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

So how did the slave holders show the slaves honor or respect while selling them as so much chattle?

"Chattel slavery
Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of an owner and are bought and sold as if they were commodities."

So a slave was treated like property, a commodity. How does a piece of property, say, a dining room table, have dignity? If you are a piece of property, your human dignity does not exist. Dignity is a living being's quality. I have never met a "dignified" dining room table. Even a Chippendale set.

Clearly Clarence Thomas is a flaming idiot and a disgrace to the SCOTUS, willing to offer up specious arguments to justify his whacky judicial opinions.

Les Carpenter said...

I actually think Thomas is right. Government cannot give dignity to the undignified nor can it take dignity from the dignified. It can however break the spirit of the dignified.

dmarks said...

... what? Do you think gay marriage should be voted on, Skud*?

dmarks said...

"have white Christian males been a minority? Your demographic has been in charge since 1620"

That sounds a tinge sexist and racist, Shaw. Esp. since we've had women, non-Christians, and non-whites in top power positions ("in charge") for years now. But yes give consideration to ALL Americans.

But I agree with your general tone about Skud*'s comment. This decision is all good-good-good.

dmarks said...

Do we need a new "Prop. 8-Legs" there?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Now this is funny.

Jerry Critter said...

Government should not be making decisions about who, or how many, should be getting married. This is a move in the right direction.

Ducky's here said...

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” the 2016 contender said in a statement.
“If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court,” Jindal added.

That's going to be one hell of an amendment, Booby.

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee disputed what he called the "notion of judicial supremacy" on Tuesday, arguing states would have the final say on gay marriage regardless of whether the Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry."

Huckleberry, not to be outdone demonstrates his knowledge of the Constitution.

"Walker calls legalization of gay marriage 'grave mistake,' wants constitutional amendment"

I can only imagine what kind of raw meat L'il Ricky Santorum has for the Teabags.
Their going all crazy over this right through the primaries.

Ducky's here said...

The clown car is just a treasure trove.
Here's Ben Carson:
"First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch," Carson said on Tuesday. "So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that's something we need to talk about."

See, there's legislative law and judicial law. Got it?

Ted Cruz has a novel idea.

"After calling the last day "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now calling for Supreme Court justices to face elections."

We'll set them up to coincide with the New Hampshire primary, Ted. No worries.


And His Trumpness:

Once again the Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down. Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2015



This may be the finest collection of God's own fools ever assembled.
Get ready for comedy gold folks.

Les Carpenter said...

Is it comedy? Really? Or is something else? Perhaps it is closer to tragic.

Shakespeare would have fun.

Jerry Critter said...

I'm looking forward to the republican debates. The stupid will be on display.

Anonymous said...

Just wondering, have any of the right wing fundies married their box turtles yet?

Because, y'know, that's what will happen now that gay people can marry each other!

Every single GOP candidate running for president is against the supreme court ruling. This shows America how out of touch and reactionary the GOP is. A majority MAJORITY of conservative young people support the decision. The GOP candidates are no different from those old timers who were against interracial marriage, wrong then, wrong now. ANd they'll pay a price for it.

Clearwater, Florida said...

The supreme court decision is causing so much butthurt on the far right. Why? No one will force them to gay marry. It seems they're angry because the court says they can't stop gays from marrying each other. And their Biblical references to why God is against it? They pick and choose what to be shocked by. One of the frikken 10 Commandments states you gotta keep the Sabbath "holy," but how many of these born-agains work or party on the Sabbath?

Shaw Kenawe said...

More on Justice Thomas's "dignity" reference in his dissenting opinion:

Human dignity cannot be taken away by the government? Really? Slaves, who were lawfully stripped of their culture and religion, taught that they were inferior to whites and not even fully human, forced into lives of servitude, abuse, rape, mental and emotional anguish, were not robbed of their basic human dignity? Really?

Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman -- something that would have been illegal today if it weren't for the Supreme Court's historic Loving v. Virginia ruling which deemed discrimination against interracial marriage as unconstitutional. It's dangerous to equate too heavily the black civil rights struggles with those of the LGBT community, but the irony here is still profound. Does Thomas see his marriage as a mere government benefit? If the law of the land stated that he and his wife couldn't be married, simply because he is black, would his dignity truly remain intact? Would he have no sense of injustice?

Les Carpenter said...

Dignity, true dignity comes from within. Government cannot bestow it or taketh it away. Governments can however; and have throughout history, break the spirit of even the dignified. It is what is known as complete tyranny.

Whether breaking one's spirit is successful or not depends largely on the strength of will to
resist. That and access to force, or fire power.

F.D. had dignity and strength of will. It wa no accident he rose as a powerful voice for freedom and liberty for all.