“What you need to understand, America, is that feelings are the New Truth, and truth is the new blasphemy.”
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
I had draft-like thoughts. Why all the need for contorting the constitution with ‘feelings” and talks of “dignity” and “fairness” to homosexuals? Couldn’t they have been a simple equal protection under the law argument just based on the rights of men vs women?
Here is what I mean. I never thought there was an equal protection argument since no one was allowed to marry someone of the same sex, homosexual or heterosexual. However, you could argue that if a man can marry any woman that would have him (ignore incest at the moment), then a woman should also be able to marry any woman who would have her under a theory of equal protection under the law.
No need to go on about the nature of homosexuality. No need to worry about the application of the ruling to bigamy or incest. What are the consequences? Women losing special protection status might be one.
It would also rob homosexuals of their special rainbow celebration since it applies to everyone (of course the current decision does apply to everyone so, I suggest heterosexuals start considering SSM marriage to cash in on all the benefits).
Whatever. Just having those “well what now” thoughts. Please excuse bad formatting.
[…] Game” Pamela Geller: Every Day, The Iran Nuclear Deal Becomes Worse And Worse Protein Wisdom: Goodbye To The First Amendment Shot In The Dark: Fighting The Tyranny Of Law STUMP: Choices Have Consequences. While Waiting For […]
The fact that the ruling is not well thought out is a feature, not a bug. The fuzzier it is, the more situations it will apply to.
Democrat Tammy Baldwin: The First Amendment doesn’t extend ‘far beyond’ ‘institutions of faith’