Case Brief: Obergefell v. Hodges

In 2015, the Supreme Court undertake the case Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U. S. ____, adjudicating whether the act of ejaculating semen into a vaginal canal for the purpose of “being fruitful and multiplying,” see Gen. 1:28, is, as a matter of law, equivalent to the act of ejaculating semen into a man’s rectal cavity for the purpose variously of sadism, masochism, rage, frustration, depression — or intentionally carrying out a prior agreement that an AIDS-infected “gift giver” will transmit his AIDS to an AIDS-seeking “bug chaser.” See Grov C and Parsons JT, Bug chasing and gift giving: The potential for HIV transmission among barebackers on the internet (NCBI 2006).

The Court addressed two issues: (1) Does the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, outlaw nearly two centuries of ubiquitous precedent, and the modern will of the people, through their elected representatives — both of which having consistently required that citizens, in order to receive a marriage license, must adhere to the norms of nature, specifically heterosexuality? (2) Does the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, mandate that any given state shall, by its own preferences, determine the marriage policies of all other states? (Socially, the Obergefell Court would resolve whether to validate the U.S. District Judge David Bunnings of the nation for caging the Rowan County Clerk Kim Davises of the nation on contempt charges for criminal refusal to equate a rectum with a womb. See Steven Nelson, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt (US News 2015).)

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, invented that, “[Although] [m]arriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm,” marriage is really just a springboard to a series of platitudes about “nobility and dignity . . . [,] transform[ing] strangers into relatives,” and so forth. See Obergefell at 3. Thence, the majority hinged their entire opinion on the idea that when a man chooses to hate or fear women to the point of spending his time mimicking, with another man’s rectum, the act of procreation — such mimicry is the man’s “immutable nature[, which] dictates that [homsexualism] is [Obergefell’s] only real path to [marriage].” Id. at 4; but see Ed Yong, No, Scientists Have Not Found the Gay Gene (The Atlantic 2015) (clarifying that notions of a “gay gene” are based on research involving a vanishingly small sample of 47 pairs of twins, and that the homosexualism-exalting conclusions of the researchers have not been replicated); Michael W. Chapman, Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: There Is No Gay Gene (Cybercast News Service News 2016)(quoting Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and former psychiatrist–in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, as saying, among other things, that, “If you are a [woman whose chooses to let your hatred or fear of men compel you to squander your life with homosexuality], you are much more likely to be college-educated . . . [and] [t]hat’s not something that happens at conception”).

Equating doomed, anti-nature, anus-centric lust with the sense of duty and purpose — and the life-giving consequences — of a relationship between a man and a woman, the cynical majority vapidly narrated that Obergefell and his co-victim “fell in love and started a life [of morally suicidal co-dependence] together, establishing a lasting, committed relationship.” Id. at 4.

The majority then departed even further from judicial decorum, melodramatically decrying that “[b]y statute, [the two men who choose to hate and fear women] must remain strangers even in death.” Id. at 5. (When this decision was later recited, the respective minds of three in five of the affirming justices wandered, each thinking of their children — eight in total among the three justices — and then, with their hearts consumed by a reverence towards Satan, they thanked the life-giving big-bang for not injecting them, the justices, with the noble “gay gene,” i.e. genetic suicide. Of those Satanic thoughts, the two other affirmers — lesbianic, fully-man-hating justices Kagan and Sotomayor — would concur in part and dissent in part).

The lesbianic misandry and penis-envy of Sotomayor and Kagan then surfaced in the Obergefell opinion, when the two man-haters described traditional marriage as a “centuries-old doctrine of coverture, [wherein] a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. Id. at 6 (citing Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765)).

The majority then observed that, “Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations,” Obergefell at 7, but forwent mention that nature — then, now, and forever — condemns as biologically impotent waste “sex-sex intimacy.” The majority further stated that “[f]or much of the 20th century . . . homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first [DSM] in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder,” ibid., but the Court left out the fact that, at the same time that the Court was decrying a “homophobic” history as evidence that a rectum is legally equal to a womb — the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was meanwhile headed by Saul Levin, a homosexual atheist whose APA busily decried, and frantically sought to criminalize, “homophobia” far more fervently than the APA had thitherto bothered to speak against the manifestly self-defeating cult of homosexualism. See e.g. Karen Ocamb, APA hosts ‘Cured’ filmmakers at conference (Los Angeles Blade 2019) (“As an even clearer sign of the [APA’s] evolution, the APA’s CEO, Dr. Saul Levin, is gay. And they are now eager to tell the story of that dark time [when the APA classified, as mentally disordered, those men addicted to mimicking, with another man’s rectum, the act of procreation]”).

Then more of the same…

Meanwhile, justices ROBERTS, SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO all joined in a single sentence dissent: “We hate love, and love hate.”







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s