Did you notice that your ex-co worker’s Blendr pic morphed into an red equal sign yesterday? Were you even aware that the right of every faggot to conform to the heterosexual fantasy of marriage was riding on the line at our nation’s highest court? (baah, sheep, etc.) For those of you who were too busy recovering from the hilairous Gagosian/Bush hoax, Tuesday was day one of oral arguments before SCOTUS in a series of two… [read more »]
[TL;DR version: DOMA is getting visciously dumped by SCOTUS, via text message.]
Background: This is the Lifetime-original story of a Sontag-esque lesbian named Edith Windsor and her longtime partner Thea Spyer. When Spyer died, Windsor had to pay over a quarter million in taxes (from inheriting her dead wife’s estate) that a hetero spouse would’ve been expempted from, all because of DOMA.
What is DOMA?
DOMA, signed into law by amazing husband Bill Clinton, defines marriage as solely between “a man and a woman.” It has been used to deny gay couples over 1,100 federal rights and priveleges afforded by marriage (tax exemptions, hospital visitation rights, priority booking at Sandals, etc.)
DOMA Forever Bitches?
Probably not. Paul Clement, the bloated lawyer defending the law who Mama Pelosi recently referred to as “stale,” tried to argue that we need to discriminate equally across the country: “we want to treat the same-sex couple in New York the same way as the committed same-sex couple in Oklahoma.”
So, if gay people are screwed in Oklahoma, they should be screwed in New York, too, even though gay marriage is legal here now, like gambling, or charging $1 million for cigarettes.
Justice/Abuela-in-chief Sotomayor wasn’t getting into it:
Justice Sotomayor: But that’s begging the question, because you are treating the married couples differently.
Mr. Clement: Well -
Justice Sotomayor: You are saying that New York’s married couples are different than Nebraska’s.
Mr. Clement: But — but the only way -
Justice Sotomayor: I picked that out of a hat. But the point is that there is a difference.
The gentlewoman from the Bronx is asking how this faggot can say that we need DOMA so we can treat everyone the same, but then by definition be treating them differently.
His response was that it doesn’t matter – nothing’s at stake when gay people can’t visit their dying spouse in the hospital, right? Spindly bird-like creature Ruth Bader Ginsburg rips him a new one:
“It’s — it’s — as Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. [DOMA creates] two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.’”
(Laughter.) [That laughter is in the offical transcript, which is ham for Ginsburg’s follower count]
If a gay marriage is like skim milk, is two gays moving in together like I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter? And then what’s 2%? Does that only apply in the dairy fetish community? To be honest, it sounds like Ginsburg doesn’t know a lot of gay people, or maybe Kagan just hasn’t been lezzing out in front of her enough. Doesn’t she realize a lesbian wedding isn’t gonna have low-fat anything? (Unless you’re Chris Quinn and you’re running for mayor- hello SoulCycle!)
As the court’s only openly closeted lesbian, Kagan did an admirable job pointing out the original homophobia explicitly written into the law when enacted in 1996:
Kagan: “I’m going to quote from the House Report here — is that “Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” Is that what happened in 1996?”
Mr. Clement: Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that.”
Ouch! Clement has to admit that his GOP ancestors were frothing anti-gay bigots. But as with everything, it comes down to what Tyra (Justice Kennedy) wants. (In this scenario Scalia is Nigel Barker, Ginsburg is Twiggy, Sotomayor is Janice Dickinson, Kagan is dog stylist Nolé Marin, and Clarence Thomas is that pit in your stomach you get right before panel.)
In reference to the children’s treasure trove of laws and rights pertaining to marriage, Kennedy told Clement:
“You are at — at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”
What’s that? We can’t have DOMA riding bareback all over state’s rights? While the rest of the Obamabots on the left are whining about treating faggots with dignity, Kennedy is once again sporting a stiffy under his robes for state’s rights. Without his vote, DOMA is as good as D.O.A.
99% INACCURATE @GOSSIPBABIES PREDICTION: SCOTUS rules DOMA unconstitutional.
Listen to the incredibly long and obtuse oral arguments (skip ahead about an hour) from Wednesday’s DOMA case and look for the court’s rulings in June to see if anyone still cares!