(The following is a stretch, but stick with us…)

Were WNBTv arguing before SCOTUS the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and were that scumbag Justice Scalia to acerbically note the authors of said document 1 were, in so far as recorded history allows, unable to see this far into the future and thus could not possibly have conceived of same-sex marriage as a “right”, WNBTv would have been forced to bitch-slap Justice Scalia right across his hoary, perpetual five o-clock jowls.

Of course the authors meant same-sex marriage as a right.

True, doubtless that particular conversation did not, in so many words, come up per se.

Peter Carr, for instance, probably never directly queried Thomas Jefferson as to what he thought of the brother of Jefferson’s Negress marrying the son of Carr’s Negress.

Only, of course, because both men deemed niggers less than human and unworthy of serious consideration.

Had that question arose, however, it would have been affirmed in the positive.

Because what those authors did say, and this is as plain as all those tiny little whiteheads and that one particularly spongy wart under Justice Scalia’s eyes, is that you can not extend important basic rights to some people and not to others.

Period. End of Reconstruction.

It does not make one Whig (heh heh heh) whether it was a nigger or a real person one was talking about: the Law would be applied equally to everyone. 2

WNBTv - Good TV!

Show 2 footnotes

  1. Or the authors of the 14th amendment.
  2. Which makes it all the more hilarious that Justice Roberts brought up ‘standing’ as an attempt at ducking the whole issue; Justice Roberts is the perfect template for the southern, conservative right-wing Christian Republican homophobe. One imagines that even as Roberts put forth his puny ‘standing’ argument today he was revisiting memories of his annual foray into anal sex with his wife and shuddering at the deliciousness of it all.

Something to say...?