John Roberts Hearts Cocksuckers:
In the realm of legal rulings on gay rights in the United States, the 1996 Supreme Court decision on Romer v. Evans stands tall. See, Colorado had passed Amendment 2 to the state constitution, which forbid all laws that banned discrimination against homosexuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court called "bullshit" on the Amendment, saying that it was apparent to anyone with a pulse that it violated the U.S.'s Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Proving once again that they are soulless zombies who must constantly be fed the brains of nubile young clerks in order to avoid collapsing into piles of goo, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented, with the typical, anus-clenched blah, blah, blah about states' rights.

The impact of Romer was felt throughout the gay community, with the Lambda Legal Defense Fund saying, "Romer is an important part of Lambda's advocacy arsenal in the current public and legislative debates about ending discrimination in marriage. By citing Romer, we can emphasize to legislatures that same-sex couples cannot be singled out for discrimination for no reason at all, for the sake of 'tradition,' or for the sake of catering to the prejudices and fears of the majority." James Dobson has not stopped vomiting since.

And, glory-hole be, what attorney worked pro bono on the case for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund? Why, it was Supreme Court nominee and conservative love doll John Roberts. While he was an attorney at Hogan and Hartson in D.C., Roberts advised co-counsel Jean Dubofsky on how to get Lamda's argument across to the conservative justices and, thus, well, win. He worked for six hours on the case, which, in billable hours works out to be a several thousand dollar in-kind donation to one of the leading gay rights organizations in the nation.

Roberts chose to work on the Romer case - he didn't have to: said the guy in D.C. who asked attorneys to work pro bono, "Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it so offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have. So at a minimum he had no concerns that would rise to that level."

So, in other words, in at least some minimal but direct way, John Roberts is responsible for the success of a legal challenge that paves the way for easier gay adoption and gay child custody, overrides the authority of states and municipalities to set discriminatory policy according their stupid fuckin' "local standards," and, well, offers a great deal of precedent for the eventual gay marriage case.

And while no one sane is sayin' that this one act makes Roberts a crazy liberal and it doesn't mean that Roberts ain't an asshole for many of his other opinions and legal briefs, it does mean that Roberts doesn't think the government should be prejudiced against same sex cocksuckers and labia lickers, that the joyful contact of double dildo with two throbbing pussies solely for the mutual enjoyment of the lesbians involved should be unregulated, that he doesn't think a city in Mississippi or Kansas or Delaware should be able to prevent employment for men who enjoy having other men place cocks, fists, and vibrators into their anuses. And it may mean he doesn't feel all twitchy and hateful around homosexuals. (Of course, it also makes us look at his role of Peppermint Patty in the high school musical a little more closely.) And that's gonna piss off more than a few people.

We members of the Family Research Council's Super-Duper Prayer team had already been asked to pray to defeat the "pro-homosexual forces" aligned against Roberts. Heavens to betsy, whatever shall we do now?