Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #johnroberts #marriage stories and more

8 Comments

  • Cam

    HA!!! I LOVE it! Those conservative idiots that thought the court would step in just got the door slammed in their faces.

    Scalia once said that if they invalidated Lawrence v. Texas that the court would have no other option but to support gay marriage, he was phrasing it as a warning but perhaps the rest of the court took notice. Looks like conservatives may be in for some surprises. fingers crossed for the Prop 8 arguments.

  • Dale

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it be an embarrassment to do so, considering D.C. has its own Human Rights law?

  • terrwill

    WARNING: ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFET DINERS: Maggot Gallagher is gonna be doing some serious binge eating after recieving this news. Keep the kids and Grandma away from the buffet line!

  • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

    Come on Queerty, that’s your best headline?

    Supreme Court Rules In Favor of DC Gay Marriage

    Supreme Court Backs DC New Gay Marriages

    Supreme Court Denies Ban of Gay Marriage

    John Roberts: Yes to DC Gay Marriage

    Douchebags Lose Appeal: Gay Marriage OK’d

  • Excreted Justice

    How about : “Supreme Court won’t shit on the parade”

  • Ken

    I don’t see how the Supreme Court had much choice. To decide in favor of a referendum, they would have to do one or more of these:

    1. Invent a legal mechanism in DC that does not exist.

    2. Declare a civil-rights law unconstitutional, with broad impact on other groups.

    3. Establish a precedent that could be applied to other minority groups to deprive them of their rights.

    4. Declare that gay people aren’t people, when there is ample legal precedent, even in past Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.

    This probably means that the Supreme Court will decide, perhaps kicking and screaming, against Proposition 8. It singles out a minority group and denies them access to one specific civil contract for a legally irrelevant reason: animus under cover of religion.

  • B

    No. 6 · Ken wrote, “This probably means that the Supreme Court will decide, perhaps kicking and screaming, against Proposition 8. It singles out a minority group and denies them access to one specific civil contract for a legally irrelevant reason: animus under cover of religion.”

    … maybe not decide – the Supreme Court always has the option of refusing to hear such a case, which they often do when the outcome is obvious, when the lower courts have obviously made the right decision, and when there is no new precedent to set.

    At this point, however, we don’t even know for sure how Judge Walker is going to rule.

  • Hyhybt

    Site question: I’ve seen other web sites where all links of the kind like “that’s great news for Perry” above automatically open in a new window. It’s great for readers, because we don’t have to either read the rest of the page and then remember to go back and see what the links were about, or else follow them and try to remember to come back to the original page, if we even still want to. I’d think it was great for the sites as well, for the same reason: instead of readers wandering off, they automatically come back to your site when they close the other window. In this particular instance that doesn’t matter so much since it’s still within Queerty, but many similar links are to the outside.

    Wait, none of that was a question. Let me try again:

    Why doesn’t Queerty make links within articles automatically open in new windows, so that readers will, again automatically, return here after seeing the contents?

Comments are closed.