So six of us were planning the hazing party for Sotomayor, where we were going to have her put a broomstick up her ass and try to hit a pinata shaped like a pre-viable fetus and stuffed with condoms while we hung speakers out the window and played "Low Rider", followed by having her shotgun a gallon of Dos Eques out of an actual shotgun, and then take her over to Fatty's to get a tattoo over her cooter that says "Eminent Domain".
Anyway, Thomas and Scalia were missing, and they were signed up to bring the lube and condoms, respectively. So, we went looking for them, and found them in chambers, engaged in a strenuous debate. Now, normally these two guys stick together like a post-coital Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on a vinyl couch in June, sort of like if an elderly organgutang was superglued to a giraffe with leukemia, for some weird breeding experiment. But this time, they differed quite strenuously.
It was on the issue of gay marriage. This is what we heard:
Scalia: This is neither an issue of equal protection nor substantive due process rights. The deepest and most abiding traditions of our culture are worth protecting. People are not ready for gay marriage.
Thomas: This is very much an issue of equal protection, and the parallels to anti-miscegenation laws are abundant. And who are we to say who isn't ready? Maybe some people are ready, and have been ready for a while, and are tired of waiting.
Scalia: Interracial marriage is completely different, because a black and white are not different in the ways that men and women are different. And some people should remember that nobody made any promises going in. Some people should keep in mind that some other people have a wife and nine children.
Thomas: Who are we, as a Court or even as a culture, to say that the love for a man for another man is lesser than the love of a black for a white? Or a man for a woman? Especially if the man frequently refers to the woman as "my tree-barked cunt of a wife"?
Scalia: Now I see your problem. You think marriage has anything to do with love.
Anyway, Thomas and Scalia were missing, and they were signed up to bring the lube and condoms, respectively. So, we went looking for them, and found them in chambers, engaged in a strenuous debate. Now, normally these two guys stick together like a post-coital Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on a vinyl couch in June, sort of like if an elderly organgutang was superglued to a giraffe with leukemia, for some weird breeding experiment. But this time, they differed quite strenuously.
It was on the issue of gay marriage. This is what we heard:
Scalia: This is neither an issue of equal protection nor substantive due process rights. The deepest and most abiding traditions of our culture are worth protecting. People are not ready for gay marriage.
Thomas: This is very much an issue of equal protection, and the parallels to anti-miscegenation laws are abundant. And who are we to say who isn't ready? Maybe some people are ready, and have been ready for a while, and are tired of waiting.
Scalia: Interracial marriage is completely different, because a black and white are not different in the ways that men and women are different. And some people should remember that nobody made any promises going in. Some people should keep in mind that some other people have a wife and nine children.
Thomas: Who are we, as a Court or even as a culture, to say that the love for a man for another man is lesser than the love of a black for a white? Or a man for a woman? Especially if the man frequently refers to the woman as "my tree-barked cunt of a wife"?
Scalia: Now I see your problem. You think marriage has anything to do with love.
Anyway, now that we have Thomas willing to be progressive for once, we think this is a great time to rule on gay marriage. There are several suitable cases percolating, but we'd like to get started with oral arguments on gay marriage.
What say you, NSG?
