james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2015-06-26 10:22 am
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2015-06-26 10:22 am
Entry tags:
It's a Prachettism. His books started off set in the Century of the Fruit Bat, then transitioned to the Century of the Anchovy around AD 2000.
And with all due respect to Mr de Worde, we really did TRY to lead it gently by the hand on this issue. Multiple times. For over fifty years.
There are different series within the series, some appeal more to different people and the first two books are, well, "still finding his voice" is being charitable, I prefer the Guards books more than the others, but miss_s_b prefers the Witches series.
miss_s_b prefers the Witches series.![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Ever since Stonewall it's gotten better.
I wonder how many people will incorporate readings from the decision into their (same or opposite sex) marriage ceremony? The final paragraph of the decision seems made for such use: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Seriously, anchovy? I would have thought mudskipper came next.
This sort of ruling makes it less likely that socially liberal, but economically conservative, voters will vote Republican for president, as that will make it more likely that the narrow margin will be reversed after SCOTUS changes.
Apparently Scalia, arguing the case of Evil, actually literally brought up the Hippie Menace.
There's an extensive selection of things wrong with Scalia.
I'm sure god will be rapturing Christians up to heaven any minute now. It'll be nice to have a thousand years of good times without anyone ranting about sins.
His whole dissent is a classic of escalating Scalia hilarity. In a year or two he's just going to be videotaping himself waving his hands and making animal noises.
I spent a reasonable amount of the morning reading news stories, listening to Obama's brief speech on the topic, watching friends' reactions on Facebook, and crying, so now I've moved on to phase two, looking for funny reactions. Regarding the hippie thing, the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim has this:
"'The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'" he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."I also liked the Onion's article titled 'Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day.'
HuffPost went to look for the first hippie we could find, per Scalia's instructions. Neil Cousins, a 61-year-old man from Alexandria protesting nuclear weapons outside the White House, said he had come to this very park in the 1970s for pot smoke-ins, but added that there really haven't been hippies around since the Grateful Dead stopped touring. He was nonetheless willing to offer a judgment on Scalia's assertion that marriage abridges rather than expands intimacy. "I've known it to have both reactions," he ruled. "Scalia is a big knucklehead."
Three, though the third is a little in the weeds.
Roberts isn't much better:
Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.
I don't care if it /is/ just a bare majority, it's a majority!
My other favorite from Scalia today:
"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
"Because that's how Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board worked. Yeah. Really. That's the ticket."
It's desperately important to pretend everyone involved is reasonable, fair, and kind. If you stop pretending that you have to admit what's actually going on, who it benefits, and that the pile of corpses isn't an accidental side effect of vague impersonal forces.
Good news for Americans! Justice, equality and love won pretty thoroughly here. :)
I expect the usual suspects will be apoplectic about this...
I expect the usual suspects will be apoplectic about this...
Somebody pointed out that earlier this week Roberts insisted that "the state" refers to any governing body, on either the state or federal level, and today he's insisting that that conflation would be bad. I keep hearing that he's clever, quiet, and playing a long game, but it's also possible that he's just making stuff up as he goes along.
Orson Scott Card is now in the fifth hour of the bender, and he's calling the bartender a Lamanite.
Which one are you thinking of?
(If I had to guess, I'd guess JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES.)
(If I had to guess, I'd guess JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES.)
Page 1 of 3