Top homophobes are concerned. Very, very concerned:
Some social conservatives are ready to disown Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts if he votes in favor of same-sex marriage. [...]
“I certainly think his credentials were tarnished with the ObamaCare decision,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Does he care about his standing with conservatives? I don’t know.”
Why should he care about his standing with conservatives? He's got a lifetime gig already. If I were the Chief Justice, I'd give exactly zero fucks about what some bigot-prude lobbying group thought. Since public opinion is clearly on the side opposite that of Mr. Perkins' sexuality and morality regulation squad, I'd be more concerned about looking like a dick in the history books for failing to
do the right thing, than placating a bunch of lunatics who'd love nothing more than to flush that whole “separation of church and state” thing down the toilet.
Besides, who needs to be concerned about civil rights? The most important thing to keep in mind when deciding a case, as far as conservatives are concerned, is how destructive to one's legacy being remembered as a turncoat would be:
Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a former president of the Family Research Council, said Roberts shouldn’t be considered a conservative if he sides with the proponents of same-sex marriage after casting the deciding vote on healthcare. [...]
He said the court would have to be seen as having a liberal majority, at least on hot-button political and social issues.
Wait, surely these conservatives haven't forgotten about all that “calling balls and strikes” stuff now, have they? Of course not:
Conservatives don’t necessarily think Roberts owes them a debt because of healthcare, but they’re still not convinced the ruling was a one-off event, Bauer said.
“I hope to the extent he feels a debt to anyone or anything, it would be to the Constitution,” he said.
Oh good, I'm glad you feel that way, Mr. Constitution Lover. Maybe this Bauer dude can tell us how the Chief Justice can rule against marriage equality and remain true to the Constitution at the same time? Nevermind, I know the answer:
“It's only Constitutional if I agree with it.”
And that Ted Olson guy representing teh gayz? Pffft. He's waaaay disowned:
If conservatives are ready to ditch Roberts, they are already finished with Ted Olson, the attorney who argued against California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage this week.
Olson — a conservative legal superstar — argued marriage equality for gays is a conservative position and said the Constitution ensures a right for same-sex couples to marry.
Because you can't be a Republican without being a bigot or something. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be
loaded and mighty high:
“Any Republican that argues, from a Republican standpoint, this is the proper conservative or Republican position is smoking medical marijuana or something,” Bauer said.
Fear not, though, conservatives, because at the end of the day, the Chief Justice will do the
right wrong thing, upholding the Constitutional right of bigots to continue being bigots:
Perkins said he thinks Roberts will side against same-sex marriage in both of this week’s cases.
“I think he’s going to be on the right side of this, because it’s pretty clear-cut,” Perkins said.
Clear-cut? Somebody's high, and it ain't Ted Olson.
.......