NOM And Justice Scalia Whine, Lament The Days When Their Bigotry Was More Acceptable

scalia-new-orleans-19339533jpg-fb19c7ae24c8606cAs expected, wingnuts with the National Organization for Marriage are expressing extreme outrage in the wake of today’s landmark SCOTUS decisions. Shortly after receiving a massive proverbial slap to the face, the organization started whining via press release.

NOM is calling the decision “illegitimate” and condemning SCOTUS for “rewarding corrupt politicians and federal judges.” The group plans to continue fighting against what they call “a miscarriage of justice” by demanding that Congress “continue to protect the right of states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.”

“There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court,” said NOM President Brian Brown. “They’ve allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It’s an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption.”

But NOM may have a friend left in Justice Antonin Scalia, who remained the most vocally opposed to today’s decision by dismissing it as “legalistic argle-bargle.” The longest-serving Justice used most of his dissent to lament the days when his bigotry was more acceptable, and complained that he was unjustly labeled “an enemy of human decency” for his outdated views. “To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution,” he said.

He continued, suggesting the issue may have been better left to the states:

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.”

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. What will these men do now that they’re no longer compatible with a decent society?