Author’s note: I started writing this the day that the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges and I stopped writing it because I guess I didn’t want to keep writing it. I found it today and decided to finish it. Hooray for being timely!

All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. I am, however, disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage. My views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman, and I believe Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs

John Boehner said that in his official role as Speaker of the House of Representatives. He’s regurgitating the “compassionate” conservative memo on why gay marriage is bad. He said this and not “them homos make me feel icky” because, presumably, he wanted to get re-elected at the time and Donald Trump had not pivoted the national tone of conservative discourse so wildly into the land of Cheeto-dust covered ham-fisted idiocy. It’s nice, at least, that Republicans are finally speaking plain English and not hiding behind the veil of “state’s rights” or whatever they’re calling it today.

“‘[SCOTUS] disregarded the democratically-elected will of millions of Americans”

I’d like to briefly do a little thought exercise. Let’s imagine for one second that the democratically-elected will of millions of Americans had decided that we were going to strap poor people to rockets and fire them into the sun without due process. What would Boehner have said then? Well, he probably would’ve been fine with it. Bad example. What if the democratically-elected will of millions of Americans had instead decided to allow gay marriage, and then the Supreme Court had said that gay marriage wasn’t legal? You think he’d be griping about the democratically-elected will of the people then? Of course not! He’d be congratulating the Supreme Court (and himself) on correcting an unconstitutional misstep and preventing the tyranny of the minority or whatever bullshit phrase someone smarter than him had told him 3 minutes prior to the speech he would’ve made.


Beyond that, I think it’s worth noting that the people don’t get to decide what’s constitutional: the Supreme Court does. That is their responsibility, and it is their responsibility alone.

To the folks *cough* Antonin Scalia *cough* who frequently gripe that the Supreme Court is imposing its will on the people: What else are they supposed to do? There is—despite what idiots might tell you—no one immutable truth about what Due Process or Equal Protection comports to provide. There is only what each Justice of the Supreme Court decides it does. And five of them today decided that the 14th Amendment protects marriage for everyone as a fundamental right.

“My views are based on my upbringing and my faith”

Well OK John but the First Amendment to the Constitution you swore to uphold means that your faith doesn’t get to decide what the laws are. In fact, the laws can neither favor your religion nor can they impede your right to practice it. There’s a serious discussion to be had about where the right to practice one’s own faith stops and another’s right to be free of your religion begins but I seriously doubt John Boehner is interested in having it.* 

“All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love”


Why look at that! I agree with John Boehner on something! Wait, what’s that? There’s more? He’s not done here?

“I am, however”

“I’m not racist, but”/“I’m not a homophobe, but”/“I’m not sexually attracted to feet, but”


Spare me, dipshit. Whatever you said about loving your neighbor the 10 words prior have been completely undone by this massive qualifier. It’s like you don’t actually like the gays. I’m beginning to suspect as much, anyway.

To conclude, because I’ve wasted enough of your time today: John Boehner is here expressing something that John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court expressed in somewhat more lofty language in his dissent in Obergefell.


John Boehner is no lawyer (despite, again, swearing to uphold a constitution one might hope he understood). John Roberts, on the other hand, should know better. And he probably does. He probably wrote that paragraph and turned a visible shade of money-colored-green thinking of the speaking engagements at Liberty University or wherever else Jerry Fallwell’s rotting corpse has been propped up lately.

The “will of the people” argument is so plainly without merit that my dumb ass can cut through it without recourse to anything more powerful than the concept of judicial review, which I learned in 10th grade US Government class, in which I got a C-. I didn’t go to Harvard Law, either. Yet there’s the person who’s supposed to be the smartest lawyer in America, making a shitty dumb argument in a written Supreme Court decision. Hmmmm.


Evil Roy Slade is a big dumb moron.

*For the record I think the only answer to the question of where the right to practice religion stops is when it starts interfering with another’s right to be free of religion, not to sound tautological. In other words your religion might demand that you evangelize and convert every non-believer you see, but you can’t say that you have a constitutional right to forcefully convert people who don’t want to be converted. I think that’s how it has to be, for it to have any meaning at all.