No, not him, although that was the last movie he was in where he was cute.

The clips of the oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit when Reagan-appointee Judge Richard Posner ripped new assholes (so to speak) into the AGs from Wisconsin and Indiana regarding their marriage equality bans were a thing of beauty.

A day late, but not a dollar short, I give you a linque to his incredibly readable and awesome opinion. There have been other opinions snarkily quoting Scalia’s dissent in the DOMA case, but Posner lays it out in language that you can share with your Aunt Marge in Minnetonka or Tio Manuel in Midland.

And as a side note — my favorite thing about Posner is that he uses contractions, which rumor has it is because he dictates his opinions and can’t (cannot, if you want to be an annoying attorney) type. Read his opinion out loud – it really is like he’s the awesome dinner guest you bring with you to Thanksgiving in Hot Springs to explain to grandma why you’re (not you are) getting married to your friend/roommate of 20 years.

My favorite passage:

Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children. The state’s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a “model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women” is impossible to take seriously.
At oral argument the state‘s lawyer was asked whether “Indiana’s law is about successfully raising children,” and since “you agree same-sex couples can successfully raise children, why shouldn’t the ban be lifted as to them?” The lawyer answered that “the assumption is that with opposite-sex couples there is very little thought given during the sexual act, sometimes, to whether babies may be a consequence.” In other words, Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

BAM!

Oh haaiii, it’s Pride weekend here in Ess Eff, in case you didn’t hear. And you may have heard the sound of a million wingnut heads asploding as the Ninth Circuit wasted no time in lifting its stay on Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop. 8, and while the City and County of Ess Eff can be highly inefficient in some areas, they are super efficient in issuing parking tickets and marriage licenses.  City Hall will be open all weekend until 8 pm each night.

Catch a flight and land at SFO.

T-minus 1 hour until SCOTUS announces their decisions on DOMA and Prop. 8. I’m cautiously optimistic on DOMA, and afraid they will wimp out and use some bullshit standing argument to not decide Prop. 8.

You can follow the announcement of the decisions live at scotusblog.com – I’ll try to follow and update, but I may still be sleeping at 7 am PDT after the Tuesday night Texas Lege trainwreck. Share your thoughts and reactions below.

UPDATE:

9:55 EDT: Five minute buzzer

10:01 EDT: DOMA is dead! 5-4 by Kennedy.  “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. […] The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.”

10:11 EDT: SCOTUSblog says the dissent in DOMA implies they refused to take jurisdiction on Prop 8.

10:18 EDT: Scalia is reading his entire dissent from the bench, so we have a little time to spare. No word if Alito is rolling his eyes and sighing like he did yesterday when Ginsburg dissented from the Voting Rights Act decision.

10:26 EDT: Perry decision: Petitioners didn’t have standing to appeal to the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS. Northern District of California decision stands.  “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”

10:30 EDT: Folks standing in line at San Francisco City Hall:

“I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.” —Richmond, Washington, florist Barronelle Stutzman, declining to do business with gay ten-year customers and bringing the wrath of the state attorney general upon her. [Seattle P-I]

It does explain why Romney didn’t pick him as the running mate.

[New Yorker: Rob Portman and His Brave, Gay Son]

“husband, wife: Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage. Spouse or partner may be used if requested.” —New entry in AP Stylebook, following bitching about “couples or partners” for non-opposite-marriages. [BuzzFeed]

Rick Warren to Piers Morgan, Tuesday night:

“Here’s what we know about life: I have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. Sometimes I get angry and I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn’t mean I act on it. Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don’t act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn’t make it right. Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural.”

Rick Warren to Piers Morgan, as reported on Piers Morgan’s blog:

Read more »