All errors should be reported to

Monday, June 25, 2018

Justices should never have meddled in gay weddings

Having usurped the power of state legislators to regulate marriage, the United States Supreme Court of Appeals finds itself besieged by objections from florists and cake bakers. The justices want out.

Oh, it was all fun and games when the courts were self-righteously bullying some county clerk into issuing a marriage license that was illegal under Kentucky law.

Brand a Christian a "homophobe," punish her, and everyone feels morally superior.

But now the consequences are hitting home. Suddenly, court rulings mean that businesses need the permission of government to turn aside customers. And the justices face being bogged down by people who just don't want to arrange flowers for a wedding between two dudes or two girls.

Why the justices might actually have to do some work.

Son of a gun.

So the justices decided to punt.

"The Supreme Court on Monday said they were passing up a chance to consider a closely watched case about merchants’ obligations to provide services to same-sex couples," Politico reported.

"The justices said they will not hear a case involving a Washington state florist who cited her religious beliefs in declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. The move effectively postpones a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on whether and when business owners can refuse services to gay couples."

When you short-circuit the legislative process by minting a new right out of thin air, you create a mess.

Now our justices are too lazy and too cowardly to own the results of their action. They live in the swamp, too. They made their bed, but they want America to sleep in it.


Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at


  1. Remember in the 70s when the J-Team abolished the death penalty?

    Same deal.

  2. First hit the iceberg, THEN surrender the helm, huh?

  3. The gay community in Hollywood created then scripted Obama's presidential bona fides to get what they considered their legal rights, marriage and divorce. They wept when he delivered.
    Not satisfied, they now want revenge for all those years of shadow living they feel they were forced to endure. They activly support Maxine Waters and her campaign of Trumper harrasment. It feels so good to finally spit (without consequence too!) on someone you hate, I guess.
    I don't see this as a wise move on their part. Revenge is a blood liable that leads only to more blood, as we see in the Mideast now and know to be a regular feature of violent culture wars in the past like the Spainish Civil War. Here in the US, violence is unlikely to pour out upon them but social ostracism and passive resistance to whatever other goals they may want to achieve are sure to follow. Some of them seem to want this kind of cloistered life choice but it is bound to be one of restricted opportunity and also geographically determined, itself something of little constitutional influence, as that document is now written and is likey to stay so for a long time. They too should accept the restrictions of live and let live most of us have to follow,and often with some regret, to get along in our own lives.
    Perhaps reading The Agamemnon would be a good start for some of their leaders, specifically those who strove mightily to inflict Obama on the US, a deed I would argue that is already enough revenge for a millenia. The consequences of repeated bad actiont leading to revenge in one of the greatest plays of all time by one history's greatest poets might be of interest to them, before their own regret become unmendable.

  4. This stuff is confusing!
    The DailyWire report makes it sound like the Washington court ruling was invalidated.
    COTUS Invalidates Ruling Against Christian Florist
    On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a Washington state court would have to reconsider its ruling against a florist who served a gay couple for over ten years but would not do their wedding flowers. The Supreme Court’s decision was catalyzed by their ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which they ruled for Colorado baker Jack Phillips.

  5. Hmmm. I just read through my copy of the U.S. Constitution agsin, and I still don't see where it gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate marriages. It seems that SCOTUS pulled that authority out of - well, thin air. Perhaps some of the States should consider another challenge. - Elric

    1. Wrong document.

      “in order to form a more perfect union...”

    2. "and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and to our posterity..."
      That's the line I love!

  6. The government should have never involved itself in the religious ceremony of marriage. Period.

  7. At some point gay marriage will be revisited. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that can't change or be redefined for political reasons. Either marriage must now end as an institution or gay marriage must end. Not room for both.

    1. There is no such thing as so-called "gay marriage." Lincoln was asked how many legs a dog would have if you called his tail a leg. Four, Abe replied. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.