Shhh…. listen closely … hear that? That’s the sound of total freakin’ chaos. Right here, in Massachusetts! (No, not that! That’s just crickets.)
Well, that’s what the Liberty Counsel (from FL) told the US Supreme Court would ensue if gay marriage was legalized: "marriage as universally understood for millennia of human history will be forever changed; chaos will ensue."
Chaos is happening right now. Oops, it’s been happening since May 17. Aren’t you terrified?
(The big "whatever" on gay marriage was heard on election day in the Bay State, by the way.)
Please share widely!
The dipshits over at “Reason” are trying to read all kinds of intrigue into the Supremes’ decision not to decide this case, claiming that it’s “difficult to tell” what the refusal means. They ask: “Does the court want a better, clearer case to address the issue? Do the justices really want the states to hash it out amongst themselves? Do they need more action on the issue from Congress? Or is the Court simply stalling for time until a new chief justice is appointed?” They conclude that the “stalling” rationale is “the easiest one to swallow.” See http://www.reason.com/re/current.shtml#3They leave out what is by far the most likely explanation: this case was utterly, completely, and totally without merit. The theory, basically, was that the gay marriage decision deprived the citizens of MA of a “republican form of government.” That theory is, in a word, silly – as both the district court and the court of appeals in Boston held. I would be surprised if anyone currently sitting on the Supreme Court believed that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage, but I would be even more surprised if any of them believed that a STATE court’s conclusion that there is a STATE constitutional right to gay marriage somehow creates a federal constitutional issue. This thing is going to be decided state by state. As it should be.
Update: Lyle Denniston has an article here – http://www.slate.com/id/2110490 – explaining why the Sup. Ct.’s refusal to hear this case was utterly predictable and doesn’t reflect anything about what the Court actually thinks about gay marriage.