Mixed Up Metaphors

Scalia Compares Gay Marriage Ruling to Overcooked Meat Loaf

The Supreme Court struck down DOMA in a 5-4 vote this week. That means legally married same-sex couples are now entitled to the same federal benefits as straight couples. And guess who’s not happy about it?

Justice Antonin Scalia.

The homo-hating Justice, who has a history of making bizarre metaphors when it comes to describing homosexuality (in the past he has likened it to murder, polygamy, bestiality, incest,  and animal abuse, among other things), offered a scathing dissent to Wednesday morning’s ruling, making the unusual point of reading from the bench, which means: He’s piping hot mad, people!

His latest metaphor is perhaps less inflammatory then previous ones, but what it lacks in offensiveness it makes up for with absurdity.

In his dissent, the 77-year-old Justice called the ruling “jaw-dropping” then compared it to an overcooked loaf of meat.

Or maybe a loaf of bread.

It’s unclear precisely what kind of loaf the beefy Justice is talking about, but it’s a loaf nonetheless.

Said Scalia:

“Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe.”

In Scalia’s defense, he’s a judge, but not a poet. (Evidently he’s also a chef.)

Staying true to homophobic form, he also said:

“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.”

On the contrary, it seems he’s the one having a hard time admitting his opponents–gay people and their supporters–aren’t monsters.

But here’s the real kicker from his statement:

“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 them both better.”

Honest victory? The Court is supposed to protect vulnerable minorities from the overreach of the majority. Did Scalia skip James Madison’s Federalist Papers at Harvard Law School? Because that’s precisely what happened yesterday–a victory for equality. Which is why it feels so damn good!

Sounds like someone could use a vacation. Good thing the Court is now in recess.