Why Scalia's originalism is a bunch of [expletive]
- Scalia: Was it unconstitutional?
- Olson: It was constitutional when we - as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that -
- Scalia: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?
- Olson: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.
- Scalia: Well, how am I supposed to decide a case, then -
- Scalia: Okay. So I want to know how long it has been unconstitutional in those -
- Olson: I don't - when - it seems to me, Justice Scalia, that -
- Scalia: It seems to me you ought to be able to tell me when. Otherwise, I don't know how to decide the case.
- Olson: I - I submit you've never required that before. When you decided that - that individuals - after having decided that separate but equal schools were permissible, a decision by this Court, when you decided that that was unconstitutional, when did that become unconstitutional?
SHANTE SHE SHOULD HAVE STAYED.
This is one bitch that ain’t happy.
Sorry RuPaul, I don’t know if there’s even another queen on this season that’s worth tuning in for anymore. (Other than your Royal Highness, of course.)
MAKES ME GIANT RAINBOW RAGE MONSTER
So there’s this section on page 31 of the 2012 Republican Platform, “Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage.” It starts off,
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children.
Aside from that last sentence being a distortion of fact, if not blatantly untrue, and that I vehemently disagree with the use of “traditional” (I suppose implying “heterosexual”) marriage, I can handle this. Frankly, I kind of agree with the first two sentences, in specific contexts, but obviously that is not exclusive to so-called “traditional” families. Anyway, it’s nothing you wouldn’t expect from Republican bigots.
But then the paragraph concludes with this little gem:
…the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity [EMPHASIS ADDED].
Excuse me, I need to go find my dreidel; a reality check is in order. Nope, not a dream. What kind of parallel universe are Republicans living in that such an exclusionary proclamation can be concluded with “respect and dignity”… RAGE, RAINBOW-HULKIFIED ANGER.